e c o n o m i c r e p o r t t o t h e g o v e r n o r · average annual pay per capita personal...

E C O N O M I CE C O N O M I CE C O N O M I C

R E P O R TR E P O R TR E P O R T

T O T H ET O T H ET O T H E

G O V E R N O RG O V E R N O RG O V E R N O R

State of Utah Gary R. Herbert Governor

Employment—Employment increased 2.3% in 2011 and increased an estimated 3.4% in 2012. Industry Focus—Nearly all industries had employment gains from 2010 to 2011 with the largest gains in mining and natural resources (11.6%).

Construction was the only industry to decline (-0.1%). Unemployment—Utah's 2011 unemployment rate was 6.7%, down from 8.0% in 2010. There were an approximately 90,000 unemployed Utahns. Average Wage—In 2011, Utah's average annual nonfarm wage was $39,686, an increase of 2.2% from 2010.

State of Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert

Population—The State of Utah’s July 1, 2011 population was 2,813,923, an increase of 1.4% or 39,260 from 2010. Utah’s unique characteristics of high fertility and low mortality consistently con-tribute to strong natural increase, the difference between births and deaths. In 2011, 51,734 births led to a strong natural increase of 36,947. This natural increase accounted for 94.1% of total popula-tion growth.

Rate of Growth—According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Utah ranked third, behind the District of Columbia and Texas, with a population growth rate of 1.5% from 2010 to 2011. The U.S. rate of growth was 0.7%.

Median Age—Utah was the youngest state in the nation with a 2011 median age of 29.5, compared to the national median of 37.3.

Population Growth Rates: 2010-2011

Governor’s Office of Management and Budget November 2012 www.governor.utah.gov/dea November 29, 2012

Percent Change in Utah Employment by Industry: 2010-2011 Annual Averages

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Demographics

Employment and Wages

Excerpts ECONOMIC REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR

1.8%

1.2%

2.6%

2.7%

4.6%

0.6%

0.7%

1.8%

2.4%

-0.1%

11.6%

2.3%

-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Government

Other Services

Leisure & Hospitality

Ed. & Health Serv.

Prof. & Bus. Serv.

Financial Activity

Information

Trade, Trans., Utilities

Manufacturing

Construction

Mining

Total

Utah United States2010 Estimate 2,775,479 309,330,2192011 Estimate 2,817,222 311,591,9172010-2011 Percent Change 1.5% 0.7%2010-2011 Numeric Change 41,743 2,261,698

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

2011 Utah Population Estimate 2,813,9232010-2011 Percent Change 1.4%2010-2011 Increase 39,2602011 Net Migration 2,3132011 Fiscal Year Births 51,7342011 Fiscal Year Deaths 14,7872011 Natural Increase 36,947

Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee


Box Elder0.7%

Cache1.3%

Rich0.3%

Weber 0.5%

Tooele1.2%

Salt Lake1.2%

Morgan2.1%

Summit1.9%

Daggett 3.5%

Utah2.2%

Wasatch3.3% Duchesne

2.4% Uintah2.1%

Juab0.7%

Sanpete0.9%

Carbon0.1%

Emery-0.2% Grand

1.0%

Millard0.6%

Piute-0.8%

Garfield-0.4%

Sevier0.3%

Wayne-1.6%

San Juan1.4%

Iron1.1%

Beaver-0.6%

Washington1.8%

Kane1.0%

Davis 1.6%

State = 1.4%

Increase of 0.4% to 1.3%

Population Loss

Increase of 2.4% or greater



Total Nonfarm Employment (2011) 1,208,649Change (2010-2011) 27,030Percent Change (2010-2011) 2.3%Unemployment (2011) 6.7%

Total Nonfarm Wages (2011) $47.9 billionPercent Change (2010-2011) 4.6%

Average Annual Wage (2011) $39,687Percent Change (2010-2011) 2.2%

Total Personal Income (2011) $94.4 billionPercent Change (2010-2011) 5.9%

Per Capita Personal Income (2011) $33,509Percent Change (2010-2011) 4.3%

e = estimate

Governor’s Office of Management and Budget November 2012 www.governor.utah.gov/dea November 29, 2012

Construction—The value of permit authorized construction in Utah in 2011 was $3.75 billion, slightly higher than the $3.24 billion in 2010. In constant 2011 dollars all three major construction sectors improved. The value of residential construction increased by 3%, nonresidential con-struction by 30%, and additions, alterations and repairs by 28%. While the value of residential construction increased, the total number of units (8,784) decreased, 6% below 2010. This marked the sixth consecutive year of decline in residential units. The previous longest residential contrac-tion was the five year contraction of 1978-1982.

Tourism—Utah’s travel and tourism sector had a successful year in 2011. Total spending by travelers and tourists is estimated to have increased 5.3% to $6.86 billion. Total direct state and local taxes generated by traveler spending is estimated to have increased 5.8% to $890 million. Taxable room rents increased to $1.2 billion, and occupancy rates were up 5.0%. Tourism related employment also increased to 124,059.

Exports—Buoyed by the rising price of gold, Utah exports grew 37.8% from 2010 to 2011. Shipments of primary metals, particularly gold, ac-counted for approximately 64.1% of total exports in 2011. Computers and electronics comprised the second highest proportion of total exports, 11.6%. In 2011, exports excluding primary metals grew by 10.5%.

Energy—In 2011, Utah continues to experience significant annual increases in crude oil production stemming from healthy crude oil prices, which spurs exploration and development in the Uinta Basin. Despite a weaker natural gas price, production reached a new record high in 2011 as natural gas was captured from new crude oil wells. Coal production in 2011 increased slightly as the Castle Valley mine reopened and production began at the new Coal Hollow mine in southern Utah.

Minerals—The nominal value of nonfuel and solid energy mineral (coal and uranium) production in Utah was $5.2 billion in 2011. This is approxi-mately $449 million (9%) higher than the revised $4.8 billion seen in 2010. The overall increase in nonfuel mineral values is primarily due to signifi-cant increases in industrial mineral values and a moderate increase in precious metal values that compensated for a slight decline in the value of base metals.

Agriculture—Total sales in agriculture were $1.59 billion in fiscal year 2012, which is up 13.6% from fiscal year 2011. Livestock sales were up 9.9% to $1.06 billion while crop sales were up 21.8% to $531 million. Livestock sales accounted for 68.4% of agriculture sales, while crop sales made up 31.6%.

Education—In fall 2012, there were an estimated 600,970 students in Utah's public education system, an increase of 13,225 students or 2.3% over 2011. Utah's student enrollment growth has been moderate for several years after peaking at 3.1% in 2006. Utah System of Higher Education en-rollment for 2011 was 174,013, an increase of 2,835 (1.7%) from 2010.

Overview of the Economy— Utah typically grows more rapidly than the nation after re-cessions, and this pattern is continuing in the current recovery. For the U.S., employment grew 1.4% in 2012, compared to 3.4% for Utah. While employment increased during 2012, Utah’s unemployment rate also im-proved to 5.9%, lower than the rate in 2011. Though housing stabilized, with building permits at 11,000 in 2012, home-building is not leading the economy as it does during a typical recovery.

Outlook 2013—Utah’s job growth is ex-pected to grow at 3.2%, just above its long-term average, 3.1% while the nation ticks down to 1.3%. With job growth near the long-term average, the unemployment rate will hold steady at 5.9%. In contrast to the early stages of the recovery, housing will pro-vide noticeable support to the expansion. Repeating its leading role from 2012, con-struction employment will grow 9.2% in 2013, an increase of 6,600 jobs. The continuing housing recovery accounts for most of the strong showing in construction.

State Rank

3rd 1st 3rd 1st 1st

5th 6th

14th

Value

1.5% 2.45

78.7 years 29.5 years

3.13 persons

212.7 per 100,000 people 10.2%

90.3% of persons 25+ w/ high school degree

Year

2011 2010 2000 2011 2011

2010

2009-2011 2011

Economic Rate of Job Growth Unemployment Rate Urban Status Median Household Income Average Annual Pay Per Capita Personal Income

State Rank

14th 6th

13th 11th 36th 47h

Value

1.6% 5.4%

86.7% $58,438 $40,300 $33,509

Year

Sept. 2012 Sept. 2012

2010 2009-2011

2011 2011

Notes: 1. Rankings are based on the most current national data available for all states, and may differ from other data. 2. Rank is most favorable to least favorable.

Utah Economic Indicators: 2011-2013

Demographic Population Growth Rate Fertility Rate Life Expectancy Median Age Household Size Social Indicators Violent Crime Poverty Rate Educational Attainment

Source: Revenue Assumptions Working Group f = forecast

Highlights

Economic Outlook

Rankings

6.4

2.3

3.0

5.9

3.2

1.7

6.7

1.3

3.5

5.9

3.4

1.5

6.7

-5.0

2.2

6.7

2.3

1.4

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Retail Sales

Home Prices

Average Pay

Unemployment Rate

Nonfarm Employment

Population

2011 2012f 2013f

E C O N O M I C

R E P O R T

T O T H E

G O V E R N O R

State of Utah Gary R. Herbert Governor

2012 Economic Report to the Governor iii UT

The 2012 Economic Report to the Governor is the 26th annual publication in this series. Through the last two decades, the Economic Report to the Governor has served as the preeminent source for data, research, and analysis about the Utah econo-my. It includes a national and state economic outlook, a sum-mary of state government economic development activities, an analysis of economic activity based on the standard indica-tors, and a detailed review of industries and issues of particu-lar interest. The primary goal of the report is to improve the reader’s understanding of the Utah economy. With im-proved economic literacy, decision makers in the public and private sector will be able to plan, budget, and make policy decisions with an awareness of how their actions are both influenced by and impact economic activity. Collaborative Effort/Contributors. Chapter authors, who represent both public and private entities, devote a significant amount of time to this report, ensuring that it contains the latest economic and demographic information. While this report is a collaborative effort which results in a consensus outlook for the next year, each chapter is the work of the contributing organization, with review and comment by the Governor's Office of Management and Budget. More de-tailed information about the findings in each chapter can be obtained by contacting the authoring entity. Statistics Used in This Report. The statistical contents of this report come from a multitude of sources which are listed at the bottom of each table and figure. Statistics are generally for the most recent year or period available. There may be a

quarter or more of lag time before economic data become final, therefore some statistics in this report are estimates based on data available as of mid-October 2012. Readers should refer to noted sources later in 2012 for final statistics. Forecasts are also included in some of the tables and figures. All of the data in this report are subject to error arising from a variety of factors, including sampling variability, reporting errors, incomplete coverage, non-response, imputations, and processing error. If there are questions about the sources, limitations, and appropriate use of the data included in this report, the relevant entity should be contacted. Statistics for States and Counties. This report focuses on the state, multi-county, and county geographies. Additional data at the metropolitan, city, and other sub-county level may be available. For information about data for a different level of geography than shown in this report, the contributing enti-ty should be contacted. Electronic Access. This report is available on the Gover-nor's Office of Management and Budget's web site at http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea. Suggestions and Comments. Users of the Economic Report to the Governor are encouraged to write with suggestions that will improve future editions. Suggestions and comments for improving the coverage and presentation of data and quality of research and analysis should be sent to the Governor's Office of Management and Budget, PO Box 142210, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2210 or by email [email protected].

Preface

Preface

2012 Economic Report to the Governor v UT

Content

Figures ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ ix Contributors ............................................................................................................................................................................................... xi Map of Utah ............................................................................................................................................................................................. xiii Economic Indicators for Utah and the United States .................................................................................................... xv Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Economic Outlook National Outlook ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Utah Outlook .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Economic Indicators Demographics ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Employment, Wages, and Labor Force ............................................................................................................................................... 43 Personal Income ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Gross Domestic Product by State ........................................................................................................................................................ 65 Utah Taxable Sales .................................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Tax Collections ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 75 Exports ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83 Price Inflation and Cost of Living ........................................................................................................................................................ 91 Regional / National Comparisons ........................................................................................................................................................ 95 Social Indicators .................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 Public Education................................................................................................................................................................................... 115 Higher Education ................................................................................................................................................................................. 125 Economic Development...................................................................................................................................................................... 139 Industry Focus Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 145 Construction .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 147 Energy .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 153 Minerals .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 163 Tourism, Travel, and Recreation ........................................................................................................................................................ 169

Content

2012 Economic Report to the Governor vii UT

Figures

Executive Summary A. Utah Unemployment Below U.S. ...................................... 3 B. Percent Change of Utah Employment by Industry ........ 4 C. State of Utah Components of Population Change ......... 4 D. Utah State Government Tax Revenue .............................. 5 E. Utah Residential Construction Activity ............................ 5 National Outlook 1. U.S. Actual and Potential GDP ....................................... 12 2. U.S. Nonfarm Payroll Employment ................................ 12 3. Housing Surpluses and Shortages in the U.S. ................ 13 4. Trade Balance in Eurozone as % of GSP ...................... 13 5. Labor Productivity in the U.S. and Eurozone ............... 14 Utah Outlook 6. Utah Nonfarm Payroll Employment .............................. 18 7. Utah Economic Indices .................................................... 18 8. Housing Starts in Utah and U.S. ...................................... 19 9. Homes in Utah: Sales and Median Price ........................ 19 Demographic 10. Population Growth Rates by County .............................. 25 11. State of Utah Components of Population Change ....... 26 12. Total Fertility for Utah and the U.S. ............................... 26 13. Utah Total Population ...................................................... 27 14. Fastest Growing Cities in Utah ........................................ 27 15. Utah Family Characteristics .............................................. 28 Employment, Wages, and Labor Force 16. Utah Unemployment Rate ................................................ 45 17. Year-Over Percent Change in Employment .................. 45 18. Utah Employment: Annual Percent Change ................. 46 19. Percent Change in Employment by Industry ................ 46 20. Numeric Change in Employment by Industry .............. 47 21. Utah Average Annual Pay: Percent Change ................... 47 22. Utah Payroll Wage by Industry ........................................ 48 23. Utah Employment by Establishment Size ..................... 48 Personal Income 24. Per Capita Personal Income as Percent of U.S. ............. 60 Gross Domestic Product by State 25. Percent of GDP by Industry: Utah and U.S. .................. 66 Tax Collections 26. Percent Change in Revenue ............................................. 77 27. Revenue Surplus for General and Education Fund ...... 77 28. Revenue as a Percent of State Total Revenues .............. 78 29. Wages and Capital Gains as Percent of Income ............ 78 30. Revenue Surplus Breakdown ........................................... 79 Exports 31. Utah Merchandise Exports .............................................. 84 32. Utah Merchandise Exports by Top Ten Industries ...... 84 33. Utah Merchandise Exports to Top Ten Countries ....... 85 34. Utah Exports With and Without Gold ........................... 85

Price Inflation and Cost of Living 35. Consumer Price Index and GDP Deflator .................... 92 Regional/National Comparisons 36. Population Growth Rates ................................................. 97 37. Per Capita Income as a Percent of U.S. ......................... 97 38. Median Household Income as a Percent of U.S. .......... 98 39. Average Annual Pay as a Percent of U.S. ....................... 98 40. Nonfarm Employment Growth ...................................... 99 41. Percent of Persons in Poverty ......................................... 99 Public Education 42. Utah Public Education Enrollment .............................. 116 43. Growth of Public Education Enrollment .................... 116 44. Largest School Districts .................................................. 117 45. Fastest Growing School Districts.................................. 117 46. Expenditures Per Pupil ................................................... 118 47. Expenditures as Percent of Personal Income .............. 118 48. Enrollment and Expenditure by District ..................... 119 Higher Education 49. Higher Education Enrollment ....................................... 127 50. Education and General Revenue ................................... 127 51. Wages, Taxes and Unemployment by Education ....... 128 52. Public Assistance by Education Level .......................... 128 53. Volunteering Rates by Education Level ....................... 129 54. State & Local Support per FTE Student ...................... 129 55. Total Funding Per Degree .............................................. 130 56. Adult Population with Associates Degree or Higher . 130 Agriculture 57. Price Received in Major Agriculture Sectors ............... 146 58. Farmer Share of Food Spending ................................... 146 Construction 59. Residential Construction Activity .................................. 149 60. Value of New Construction ........................................... 149 Energy 61. Crude Oil Production ..................................................... 155 62. Petroleum Product Production and Consumption ..... 155 63. Natural Gas Production and Consumption ................. 156 64. Coal Production and Consumption .............................. 156 65. Electricity Generation and Consumption .................... 157 Minerals 66. Value of Utah’s Energy and Mineral Production ........ 166 67. Value of Mineral Production ......................................... 166 68. Value of Nonfuel Minerals ............................................. 167 Tourism, Travel, and Recreation 69. Travel-Related Employment .......................................... 170 70. Total Spending by Travelers and Tourists ................... 170 71. Hotel Room Rents .......................................................... 171 72. National Park and Skier Visits ....................................... 171

Figures

2012 Economic Report to the Governor ix UT

Tables

National Outlook 1. U.S. Nonfarm Payroll Employment by Sector. ............. 15 Utah Outlook 2. Utah Nonfarm Payroll Employment by Sector. ............ 20 Demographics 3. Utah Population Estimates and Components ............... 29 4. Utah Population Estimates by County ........................... 30 5. National and State Population Counts ........................... 31 6. Rankings of States by Selected Age Groups .................. 32 7. Dependency Ratios for States .......................................... 33 8. Total Fertility Rates for Utah and the U.S...................... 34 9. Housing Units, Households, Persons Per Household .. 35 10. County Population by Race and Hispanic Origin ......... 36 11. Total Population by City ................................................... 37 Employment, Wages, and Labor Force 12. Utah Nonfarm Employment and Unemployment ........ 49 13. Utah Nonfarm Employment by Industry ...................... 50 14. Employment by County and Industry ............................ 51 15. Wages by County and Industry ........................................ 52 16. Utah Average Monthly Wage by Industry ...................... 53 17. Utah Labor Force, Jobs, and Wages ............................... 54 18. Labor Force and Components by County ..................... 55 19. Largest Nonfarm Employers ........................................... 56 20. Employment Status by Age and Sex ............................... 57 Personal Income 21. Components of Total Personal Income ......................... 61 22. Personal and Per Capita Income. .................................... 62 23. Personal Income by County ............................................. 63 24. Per Capita Income by County .......................................... 64 Gross Domestic Product by State 25. Percent of Utah GDP by Industry .................................. 66 26. Utah Nominal GDP by Industry ..................................... 67 27. Utah Real GDP by Industry ............................................. 68 28. Nominal GDP by State ..................................................... 69 29. Real GDP by State ............................................................. 70 Utah Taxable Sales 30. Utah Taxable Sales and Percent Change by Sector ....... 72 31. Utah Taxable Sales by Component ................................. 73 32. Utah Total Taxable Sales by County ............................... 74 Tax Collections 33. Fiscal Year Revenue Collections ...................................... 80 34. Fiscal Year Revenue Collections (% Change) ................ 81 35. Forecast and Actual General and Education Fund ....... 82 Exports 36. U.S. Merchandise Exports by State ................................. 86 37. Utah Exports by Industry ................................................. 87 38. Utah Exports by Country ................................................. 88 39. Utah Exports by Country and Industry .......................... 89

Price Inflation and Cost of Living 40. Consumer Price Index ...................................................... 93 41. Gross Domestic Product Deflators ................................ 94 Regional / National Comparisons 42. Population and Households ........................................... 100 43. Total Personal Income .................................................... 101 44. Per Capita Personal Income ........................................... 102 45. Median Household Income ........................................... 103 46. Median Household and Family Income ....................... 104 47. Average Annual Pay ........................................................ 105 48. Workers Covered by Unemployment Insurance ......... 106 49. Employees on Nonfarm Payrolls .................................. 107 50. Unemployment Rates ...................................................... 108 51. Percent of People in Poverty ......................................... 109 Social Indicators 52. Crime, Education, and Home Ownership ................... 112 53. Vital Statistics and Health............................................... 113 54. Poverty and Public Assistance ....................................... 114 Public Education 55. Public School Enrollment and Utah Population ......... 120 56. Fall Enrollment by District ............................................ 121 57. Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity ................................ 122 58. Utah Selected Data .......................................................... 123 59. Selected Data by State ..................................................... 124 Higher Education 60. Higher Education Enrollment and Population ........... 131 61. Higher Education Enrollment by County .................... 132 62. Higher Education by Race and Ethnicity ..................... 133 63. Degrees by Race and Ethnicity ...................................... 134 64. Cost Study Summary ....................................................... 134 65. Tuition and Fees .............................................................. 135 66. Five-Year History of Degrees ........................................ 136 67. Total Degrees by Instructional Program ...................... 137 68. Higher Education FTE’s ................................................ 138 Construction 69. Residential and Nonresidential Construction .............. 150 70. Average Mortgage Rates ................................................. 151 71. Housing Prices for Utah ................................................. 152 Energy 72. Supply and Disposition of Crude Oil ........................... 158 73. Supply and Disposition of Petroleum Products .......... 159 74. Supply and Disposition of Natural Gas ....................... 160 75. Supply and Disposition of Coal ..................................... 161 76. Supply and Disposition of Electricity ........................... 162 Tourism, Travel, and Recreation 77. National Parks Recreation Visits ................................... 172 78. Profile of Utah Travel Industry ..................................... 173 79. Utah Tourism Indicators ................................................ 174

Tables

2012 Economic Report to the Governor xi UT

Contributors

Governor's Office of Management and Budget State Capitol Complex / 350 North State Street, Suite 150 / Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2210 (801) 538-1027 http://governor.utah.gov/gopb Kristen Cox, Executive Director Juliette Tennert, Deputy Director and Chief Economist Ron Bigelow, State Budget Director Jacob Belk, Research Analyst Peter Donner, Senior Economist Effie Johnson, Research Analyst Aaron Phipps, Research Analyst David Stringfellow, Senior Economist Chapters: Executive Summary; National Outlook; Utah Out-look; Demographics; Gross Domestic Product; Tax Collec-tions; Exports; Social Indicators; Economic Development. Governor's Office of Economic Development 324 South State Street, Suite 500 / Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 538-8700 http://travel.utah.gov http://goed.utah.gov Jim Buchanan, Research Coordinator Chapter: Tourism, Travel, and Recreation Chris Conabee, Managing Director, Recruitment and Incentives Gary Harter, Managing Director, Business Creation Chapter: Economic Development University of Utah Bureau of Economic and Business Research 1645 East Campus Center Drive, Room 401 / Salt Lake City, UT 84112-9302 (801) 581-6333 http://www.business.utah.edu/bebr James Wood, Director John Downen, Senior Research Analyst Chapters: Construction Utah State Tax Commission 210 North 1950 West / Salt Lake City, UT 84134-3310 (801) 297-3900 http://tax.utah.gov Andre Baksh, Economist Matthew Lund, Economist Chapters: Utah Taxable Sales; Personal Income Department of Workforce Services 140 East 300 South / Salt Lake City, UT 84111 (801) 526-9458 http://jobs.utah.gov Mark Knold, Chief Economist Chapter: Employment, Wages, and Labor Force

Department of Natural Resources—Utah Geological Survey 1594 West North Temple, Suite 3110 / Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6100 (801) 538-3300 http://geology.utah.gov Mark Gwynn, Geologist Michael Vanden Berg, Geologist Taylor Boden, Geological Technician Chapters: Energy; Minerals Utah Foundation 10 West Broadway, Suite 307 / Salt Lake City, UT 84101-2075 (801) 355-1400 http://www.utahfoundation.org Steve Kroes, President Morgan Lyon Cotti, Research Analyst Chapter: Regional/National Comparisons Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst State Capitol Complex Suite W310 / Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5310 (801) 538-1034 http://le.utah.gov/lfa Andrea Wilko, Chief Economist Thomas Young, Economist Chapter: Price Inflation and Cost of Living Utah State Office of Education 250 East 500 South / Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4200 (801) 538-7500 http://www.schools.utah.gov Kristin Campbell, Educational Specialist Patty Murphy, Educational Specialist Chapter: Public Education Utah System of Higher Education Board of Regents Building, The Gateway / 60 South 400 West / Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1284 (801) 321-7121 http://www.higheredutah.org Joseph Curtin, Director, Institutional Research Pamela Silberman, Director of Communications Chapter: Higher Education CB Richard Ellis—Global Research and Consulting 222 S. Main Street, 4th Floor / Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 869-8014 http://www.cbre.com Darin Mellott, Research Analyst Chapter: Construction Cover Photo courtesy of Effie Johnson

Contributors

2012 Economic Report to the Governor xiii UT

Map of Utah

Box Elder

Cache Rich

Weber

Tooele

Salt Lake

Morgan

Summit Daggett

UtahWasatch

Duchesne Uintah

Juab

Sanpete

Carbon

Emery GrandMillard

Piute

Garfield

Sevier

Wayne

San Juan

Iron

Beaver

Kane

Davis

Washington

Southwestern

Southeastern

Uintah Basin

Central

Wasatch Front

Bear River

Mountainland

Box Elder

Cache Rich

Weber

Tooele

Salt Lake

Morgan

Summit Daggett

UtahWasatch

Duchesne Uintah

Juab

Sanpete

Carbon

Emery GrandMillard

Piute

Garfield

Sevier

Wayne

San Juan

Iron

Beaver

Kane

Davis

Washington

Southwestern

Southeastern

Uintah Basin

Central

Wasatch Front

Bear River

Mountainland

Map of Utah

2012 Economic Report to the Governor xv UT

Economic Indicators for Utah and the United States: October 2012

Economic Indicators

2010 2011 2012 2013ECONOMIC INDICATORS UNITS ACTUAL ACTUAL ESTIMATE FORECAST 2011 2012 2013PRODUCTION AND SPENDINGU.S. Real Gross Domestic Product Billion Chained $2005 13,063.0 13,299.1 13,574.6 13,819.5 1.8 2.1 1.8U.S. Real Personal Consumption Billion Chained $2005 9,196.2 9,428.8 9,608.5 9,820.1 2.5 1.9 2.2U.S. Real Private Fixed Investment Billion Chained $2005 1,598.7 1,704.5 1,844.7 1,955.4 6.6 8.2 6.0U.S. Real Federal Defense Spending Billion Chained $2005 717.7 699.1 679.7 654.8 -2.6 -2.8 -3.7U.S. Real Exports Billion Chained $2005 1,665.6 1,776.9 1,841.5 1,906.0 6.7 3.6 3.5Utah Exports (NAICS, Census) Million Dollars 13,809.4 19,033.5 20,400.0 21,700.0 37.8 7.2 6.4Utah Coal Production Million Tons 19.4 20.1 17.3 18.0 3.4 -13.8 4.0Utah Crude Oil Production Million Barrels 24.7 26.3 27.5 28.2 6.4 4.8 2.5Utah Natural Gas Production Sales Billion Cubic Feet 389.2 404.1 415.0 420.0 3.8 2.7 1.2Utah Copper Mined Production Million Pounds 566.5 533.0 569.1 583.5 -5.9 6.8 2.5Utah Molybdenum Production Million Pounds 28.4 25.6 28.2 27.0 -10.1 10.2 -4.3SALES AND CONSTRUCTIONU.S. New Auto and Truck Sales Millions 11.6 12.7 14.3 14.9 10.2 12.2 4.4U.S. Housing Starts Millions 0.59 0.61 0.75 0.95 4.5 22.6 26.8U.S. Private Residential Investment Billion Dollars 340.6 338.7 380.5 440.1 -0.5 12.3 15.7U.S. Nonresidential Structures Billion Dollars 376.3 404.8 453.1 463.0 7.6 11.9 2.2U.S. Home Price Index (FHFA) 1980Q1 = 100 328.2 316.7 318.2 323.5 -3.5 0.5 1.7U.S. Nontaxable & Taxable Retail Sales Billion Dollars 4,306.4 4,652.3 4,873.3 5,008.9 8.0 4.8 2.8Utah New Auto and Truck Sales Thousands 69.1 81.7 95.5 102.0 18.3 16.8 6.8Utah Dwelling Unit Permits Thousands 9.3 8.8 11.0 14.3 -5.4 25.0 30.0Utah Residential Permit Value Million Dollars 1,641.1 1,691.3 2,150.0 2,800.0 3.1 27.1 30.2Utah Nonresidential Permit Value Million Dollars 925.1 1,198.2 750.0 1,000.0 29.5 -37.4 33.3Utah Additions, Alterations and Repairs Million Dollars 674.0 859.8 650.0 700.0 27.6 -24.4 7.7Utah Home Price Index (FHFA) 1980Q1 = 100 322.2 306.1 310.0 317.0 -5.0 1.3 2.3Utah Taxable Retail Sales Million Dollars 22,989 24,523 26,166 27,841 6.7 6.7 6.4Utah All Taxable Sales Million Dollars 41,908 44,336 47,085 49,754 5.8 6.2 5.7DEMOGRAPHICS AND SENTIMENTU.S. July 1st Population Millions 310.1 312.4 315.3 318.4 0.7 0.9 1.0U.S. Consumer Sentiment (U of M) Diffusion Index 71.8 67.4 75.9 79.9 -6.3 12.7 5.3Utah July 1st Population Thousands 2,774.7 2,813.9 2,856.7 2,904.8 1.4 1.5 1.7Utah Net Migration Thousands 4.5 2.3 5.0 10.4

PROFITS AND RESOURCE PRICESU.S. Corporate Before Tax Profits Billion Dollars 1,816.3 1,854.1 2,121.8 2,294.4 2.1 14.4 8.1U.S. Corporate Profit [above less Fed. Res.] Billion Dollars 1,744.8 1,778.2 2,046.7 2,209.8 1.9 15.1 8.0West Texas Intermediate Crude Oil $ Per Barrel 79.4 95.1 94.3 94.8 19.7 -0.8 0.5U.S. Coal Producer Price Index 1982 = 100 189.2 206.7 208.7 211.4 9.2 1.0 1.3Utah Coal Prices $ Per Short Ton 30.9 32.9 35.2 36.0 6.5 7.0 2.3Utah Oil Prices $ Per Barrel 68.1 82.5 85.0 83.0 21.2 3.0 -2.4Utah Natural Gas Prices $ Per MCF 4.23 3.90 2.50 3.30 -7.8 -35.9 32.0Utah Copper Prices $ Per Pound 3.48 4.00 3.60 3.50 14.8 -10.0 -2.8Utah Molybdenum Prices $ Per Pound 15.9 15.8 13.3 15.0 -0.6 -16.1 13.2INFLATION AND INTEREST RATESU.S. CPI Urban Consumers (BLS) 1982-84 = 100 218.1 224.9 229.5 232.5 3.1 2.0 1.3U.S. GDP Chained Price Index (BEA) 2005 = 100 111.0 113.4 115.5 117.4 2.1 1.9 1.6U.S. Federal Funds Rate (FRB) Effective Rate 0.18 0.10 0.14 0.16U.S. 3-Month Treasury Bills (FRB) Discount Rate 0.14 0.05 0.09 0.12U.S. 10-Year Treasury Notes (FRB) Yield (% ) 3.21 2.79 1.80 2.0530 Year Mortgage Rate (FHLMC) Percent 4.69 4.46 3.65 3.35EMPLOYMENT AND WAGESU.S. Establishment Employment (BLS) Millions 129.9 131.4 133.2 134.9 1.2 1.4 1.3U.S. Average Annual Pay (BLS) Dollars 49,320 50,710 51,834 53,110 2.8 2.2 2.5U.S. Total Wages & Salaries (BLS) Billion Dollars 6,404.6 6,661.3 6,902.5 7,163.6 4.0 3.6 3.8Utah Nonagricultural Employment (DWS) Thousands 1,181.6 1,208.6 1,250.1 1,290.0 2.3 3.4 3.2Utah Average Annual Pay (DWS) Dollars 38,825 39,687 41,060 42,271 2.2 3.5 3.0Utah Total Nonagriculture Wages (DWS) Million Dollars 45,876 47,967 51,329 54,530 4.6 7.0 6.2INCOME AND UNEMPLOYMENTU.S. Personal Income (BEA) Billion Dollars 12,322 12,947 13,399 13,914 5.1 3.5 3.8U.S. Unemployment Rate (BLS) Percent 9.6 9.0 8.2 8.0Utah Personal Income (BEA) Million Dollars 89,152 94,401 99,404 104,871 0.6 5.3 5.5Utah Unemployment Rate (DWS) Percent 8.0 6.7 5.9 5.9Sources: State of Utah Revenue Assumptions Working Group and IHS Global Insight.

PERCENT CHANGE

Executive Summary

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 3 Executive Summary UT

Outlook As usual, Utah is recovering from the recession more quickly than the nation. Utah’s employment growth during 2012, 3.4%, was just above its long-term average, 3.1%, and more than twice the national rate, 1.4%. During 2013, Utah’s job growth is expected to grow at 3.2%, while the nation ticks down to 1.3%. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s leading index for Utah suggests economic activity will grow 2.0% over the first half of 2013, which is expected to contin-ue during the last half. With job growth near the long-term average, the unemployment rate will hold steady at 5.9%. In contrast to the early stages of the recovery, housing will pro-vide noticeable support to the expansion. The consensus outlook for the U.S. economy is continuing slow progress with growth below potential. U.S. nonfarm employment is expected to grow 1.7 million jobs, or 1.3%, in 2013, broadly similar to 2012. International, National and Regional Context U.S. Recovery. After the deepest con-traction in more than three generations, the U.S. economy has expanded slowly since the summer of 2009. By some esti-mates, during 2012, gross domestic prod-uct (GDP) was 9% below its potential, the level that would be observed if all the economy’s resources were fully em-ployed. With output so far below capaci-ty, unemployment has remained stub-bornly high, and many have stopped looking for work altogether. Policy dis-putes in both Washington and Europe dampen current activity and cloud the mid-term outlook. Most observers ex-pect the economy to continue its slow progress during 2013, with sub-par growth and a continuing gradual decline in unemployment. As 2012 opened, the recovery appeared to be strong and accel-erating with job gains averaging 250,000

per month. If this pace had continued, the unemployment rate might have dropped two full percentage points, to near 7% by year’s end. Unfortunately, as the year progressed, the early job gains appeared to result from an unusually warm winter lifting construction and other activity. For the three months ending in September, U.S. job gains averaged 150,000 per month, enough to continue modest improvement in the labor market. Global Risks. Some of the deceleration in U.S. economic activity was due to a broadening slowdown in emerging econ-omies, such as China, India, and Brazil, which dampened American exports. The policy dispute over managing the single currency immobilized the Eurozone as its economy slipped into recession, weakening an important source of demand for U.S. exports. Growth around the world is ex-pected to slow in 2013. Mountain Region. The mountain region as a whole has fared similarly to Utah, but there is a great deal of variation between the states. Total personal income increased in 2011 for each mountain state, but median household income de-clined for every state. Unemployment rates also decreased for every mountain state but Montana, where it remained stable. Utah’s unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the nation. Utah’s poverty rate continues to increase, but it is still the sixth lowest in the nation. Poverty rates also rose in all the other mountain states, and this region has some of the lowest poverty rates (Utah and Wyoming), and some of the highest (Arizona and Nevada). Although Utah’s average an-nual pay per worker remains below the national average, its

Executive Summary

Historically Utah grows more rapidly than the nation, with the broader national business cycle governing local recessions and expansions. The current recession and recovery track this general course. Both Utah and the U.S. began growing during the summer of 2009, but unemployment has remained well above pre-recession levels. Over the past two years as the recovery has progressed, both employment and income in Utah have grown more rapidly than in the U.S. The state has especially benefitted from its position as a logistical hub for production and distribution to the west coast, and, more re-cently, the entire U.S. Utah’s economic growth has acceler-ated during each of the years since the recession ended, but is expected to plateau near the long-term average during 2013.

Figure A. Utah Unemployment Below U.S.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

197

319

74

197

519

76

197

719

78

197

919

80

198

119

82

198

319

84

198

519

86

198

719

88

198

919

90

199

119

92

199

319

94

199

519

96

199

719

98

199

920

00

200

120

02

200

320

04

200

520

06

200

720

08

200

920

10

201

1

Utah United States


median household income and median family income rank above the national average. Economic Indicators Population. The State of Utah’s official July 1, 2011 popula-tion was estimated to be 2,813,923, an increase of 1.4% from 2010, according to the Utah Population Estimates Committee

(UPEC). This is lower than the decade high growth of 3.1% experienced in 2005. A total of 39,260 people were added to Utah’s population, with only 5.9% of this increase coming from people moving into the state and the other 94.1% com-ing from natural increase. The Census Bureau produces pop-ulation estimates which differ from UPEC estimates due to different estimation methodologies. According to the U.S.

Census Bureau's July 1, 2011 population estimate, Utah's population increased to 2,817,222. Utah ranked third among states in population growth with a rate of 1.5% from 2010 to 2011. Education. In fall 2012, there were an estimated 600,970 students in Utah's public education system, an increase of 13,225 students or 2.3% over 2010. In FY2011, Utah's total public education expenditure as a percent of total personal income was 4.2%, ranking Utah 34th in the nation. Utah's public education sys-tem operates over 900 community-based schools. Student enrollment continues to grow at Utah’s colleges and universi-ties. Fall enrollment for 2011 increased by 1.7% over the previous year. Since 2008, enrollment has consistently grown for full time equivalent students. Enroll-ment is projected to increase over the next ten years. Economic Performance Improving Across Sectors Construction. The value of permit au-thorized construction in Utah in 2011 was $3.75 billion, 16% higher than the $3.24 billion in 2010. In 2011, all three major construction sectors improved; the value of residential construction in-creased by 3%, nonresidential construc-tion by 30%, and additions, alterations and repairs by 28%. In 2011, residential construction totaled 8,784 units, 6% below 2010. This marked the sixth consecutive year of decline in residential units. The previous longest residential contraction was the five year contraction of 1978-1982. In the recent contraction, residential con-struction declined 69% for all types of residential units (apartment, condomini-ums and single-family homes). The de-cline was more severe for single-family homes, which dropped from 20,912 in 2005 to 5,385 units in 2011, a decline of 74%.

Figure C. State of Utah Components of Population Change


Figure B. Percent Change in Utah Employment by Industry: 2011


1.8%

1.2%

2.6%

2.7%

4.6%

0.6%

0.7%

1.8%

2.4%

-0.1%

11.6%

2.3%

-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Government

Other Services


Ed. & Health Serv.

Prof. & Bus. Serv.

Financial Activity

Information


Manufacturing

Construction

Mining

Total

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

Population Change Natural Increase Net Migration


Energy. Utah continues to experience significant annual increases in crude oil production stemming from healthy crude oil prices, which spurs exploration and development in the Uinta Basin. Despite a weaker natural gas price, production reached a new record high in 2011 as natural gas was captured from new crude oil wells. Coal production in 2011 in-creased slightly as the Castle Valley mine reopened and production began at the new Coal Hollow mine in southern Utah. Production of electricity in Utah de-creased for the third straight year, still hampered by a slowdown in the econo-my, while Utah’s 2011 average cost of electricity remained well below the na-tional average, mainly due to our reliance on established low-cost coal-fired gener-ation. Consumption of petroleum prod-ucts and electricity increased in 2011, possibly signaling an improving econo-my, whereas coal and natural gas con-sumption both dropped. Utah will con-tinue to be a net-exporter of energy, pro-ducing more natural gas, coal, and elec-tricity than is used in-state, but will re-main reliant on other states and Canada for crude oil and petroleum products as in-state production only accounts for 48% of in-state demand. Minerals. The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) estimates the nominal value of nonfuel and solid energy mineral (coal and uranium) production in Utah was $5.2 billion in 2011. This is approximate-ly $449 million (9%) higher than the re-vised $4.8 billion seen in 2010. The overall increase in nonfuel mineral values is primarily due to significant increases in industrial mineral values and a moderate increase in precious metal values that compensated for a slight decline in the value of base metals. The increase in energy mineral values can be attributed to production and price increases for coal, coupled with higher uranium prices. Mineral exploration and development activity increased markedly in late 2010 and has continued into 2012. The value of nonfuel and solid energy minerals produced in Utah in 2012 is anticipated to be slightly lower than the 2011 figure. The U.S. Geological Sur-vey (USGS) ranked Utah fourth nationally in the value of nonfuel mineral production in 2011.

Exports. Buoyed by the rising price of gold, Utah exports grew 37.8% from 2010 to 2011. Shipments of primary met-als, particularly gold, accounted for approximately 64.1% of total exports in 2011. Computers and electronics comprised the second highest proportion of total exports, 11.6%. In 2011, exports excluding primary metals grew by 10.5%.

Figure D. Utah State Government Tax Revenue

Source: Governor’s Office of Management and Budget

Figure E. Utah Residential Construction Activity

Source: Source: University of Utah, David Eccles School of Business, Bureau of Economic and Busi-ness Research

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

201

2e

Single-Family Units Multi-Family Units Total

3,4353,572

3,9214,047

3,838 3,8834,101

4,580

5,452

5,913 5,809

5,173

4,752

5,2475,490

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Mil

lion

s o

f D

olla

rs


Utah’s export growth for the 2010 to 2011 period was the second highest in the nation. Only West Virginia’s 40.1% growth in exports outpaced Utah. In terms of total exports by state, Utah moved from 26th largest in 2010 to 21st in 2011, exporting about $19 billion, or 1.3% of total national exports. Tourism. Utah’s travel and tourism sector had a successful year in 2011. Total spending by travelers and tourists is esti-mated to have increased 5.3% to $6.86 billion. Total direct state and local taxes generated by traveler spending is estimat-ed to have increased 5.8% to $890 million. Taxable room rents increased to $1.2 billion, and occupancy rates were up 3.0%. Tourism related employment also increased to 124,059. Agriculture. Total sales in agriculture were $1.59 billion in fiscal year 2012, which is up 13.6% from fiscal year 2011. Livestock sales were up 9.9% to $1.06 billion while crop sales were up 21.8% to $531 million. Livestock sales accounted for 68.4% of agriculture sales, while crop sales made up 31.6%. Although grocery prices are rising, this is not necessarily translating into greater profits for farmers and ranchers. Cur-rently, it is estimated that only 13.5% of each dollar spent by consumers on food goes towards farmers and ranchers. Looking Ahead Utah is coming out of the recession more rapidly than the U.S., as has been the case with every downturn since World War II. Job growth in Utah will be twice the nation’s, but will stabilize just above the long term average. Housing and con-struction will play a leading role in the strengthening recovery.

Economic Outlook

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 9 National Outlook UT

2012 Summary As 2012 opened, the recovery appeared to be strong and ac-celerating with job gains averaging 250,000 per month. If this pace had continued, the unemployment rate might have dropped two full percentage points, perhaps to near 7% by year’s end. Unfortunately, as the year progressed, the early job gains appeared to result from an unusually warm winter increasing construction and other activity. For the three months ending in September, U.S. job gains averaged 150,000 per month, enough to continue modest improvement in the labor market. Some of the deceleration in U.S. economic activity was due to a broadening slowdown in emerging economies, such as Chi-na, India, and Brazil, which dampened American exports. The policy dispute over managing the single currency immo-bilized the Eurozone as its economy slipped into recession, weakening an important source of demand for U.S. exports. In the U.S., Congress adjourned for the elections without agreeing on a long term path for federal taxes and spending, increasing the likelihood the economy falls off the so-called “fiscal cliff” in 2013. Expressing America’s frustration, Rich-ard Fisher, President of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, compared the “dissolute” lawmakers to drunken sailors, not-ing patriots might be offended at the insult to drunken sail-ors. Concerned the labor market would worsen without more policy action, the Federal Reserve announced it would purchase $40 billion per month of mortgage backed securities until the outlook improved. As 2012 closed, most observers marked down global growth prospects during 2013, suggest-ing another year of slow progress for the American economy. U.S. nonfarm payroll employment grew by almost 2 million jobs during 2012, or 1.4%, which lowered the unemployment rate from 9.0% to 8.2%. Mining, which is dominated by oil and gas, was the fastest growing sector at 6.6%. Health care, which expanded throughout the recession, created 350,000 jobs, the largest sector job growth. Administrative support, which includes temporary employment, was the second fast-est growing sector, at 3.7%, creating 280,000 jobs. This sec-tor benefits from the slow and uncertain recovery, as employ-

ers chose temporary instead of permanent hires. Professional services grew the third fastest at 3.3%, or 250,000 jobs. As activity continues to expand, both tourism and business travel have picked up, giving accommodation and food services almost 300,000 new jobs, a growth rate of 2.6%. Sales, pro-duction and shipping have all continued to advance. Com-bined, wholesale and retail trade added over 210,000 jobs. Manufacturing added 220,000 jobs, a rate of 1.9%. Transpor-tation added 90,000 jobs, a rate of 2.0%. After shedding 2.1 million jobs since 2006, the construction contraction appears to be over. The bottom in the housing market seems to have occurred during 2011, with construction adding 20,000 jobs during 2012. Information employment has declined every year since 2000, with the job loss during 2012 totaling 20,000, or -0.8%. Continuing budget pressure in state and local gov-ernment led to job losses of 130,000 during 2012, a decline of 0.7%. Likewise, the continuing decline in hand-delivered mail—the result of the on-going digital transition in advertis-ing and other communications—is driving a restructuring of the postal service. Consequently, federal employment fell 50,000, or -1.7%, during 2012. Significant Issues Housing In every recession since World War II, housing has led the recovery a year or two after the business cycle peak. In the typical cycle, imbalances develop during the expansion, inter-est rates rise to curtail excessive lending, the economy slows, peaks, then declines as the imbalances are worked out, reach-ing a trough a year or so after the peak. Future prospects dim during the recession (technically defined as the period of de-clining activity), so consumers put off major purchases such as cars and homes. Once the recession ends and the outlook brightens, pent up demand for housing causes construction activity to surge initiating a broad based recovery. The current recession is different because it followed a dec-ade of unprecedented growth in mortgage debt. About 80% of the increase in this debt was for equity withdrawals, the so-called house as ATM, which funded home repairs as well as basic consumer spending. As the process accelerated, credit standards fell, lending and real estate boomed, and the well known story of home price inflation unfolded. This housing inflation was fueled by millions of borrowers who were inca-pable of repaying their loans. Further, as the boom pro-gressed, a million or more homes were constructed as specu-lative investments. Once the mortgages began to default, home prices fell, credit standards tightened, the ranks of home buyers thinned, and the housing market crashed. By the second quarter of 2008, the housing stock had 3.5 million surplus units over and above the normal amount of vacant housing. While real estate speculation was the main component of the speculative credit bubble that inflated during the mid-2000s, many sectors of the economy had excess activity going into

National Outlook

After the deepest contraction in more than three generations, the U.S. economy has expanded slowly since the summer of 2009. By some estimates, during 2012, gross domestic prod-uct (GDP) was 9% below its potential, the level that would be observed if all the economy’s resources were fully em-ployed. With output so far below capacity, unemployment has remained stubbornly high, and many have stopped look-ing for work altogether. Policy disputes in both Washington and Europe dampen current activity and cloud the mid-term outlook. Most observers expect the economy to continue its slow progress during 2013, with sub-par growth and a contin-uing gradual decline in unemployment.


the fall of 2008. With broad-based excess led by housing, the financial sector had extended far more credit than prudent. As loan losses mounted, banks confronted inadequate re-serves, and a once-in-a-century financial panic set in that was not stopped until the spring of 2009. As the crisis pro-gressed, the flow of credit virtually stopped and unemploy-ment rose from 6.1% in August 2008 to a peak of 10.0% in October 2009, and has remained stubbornly high ever since. With so many people unemployed, household formation and the demand for housing has remained sluggish. On the sup-ply side, the surplus has been worked down over the past few years, but was still around 1 million units at the end of 2012 and is expected to be around 500,000 at the end of 2013. Further, credit is still tight for both home buyers and real estate developers. While it is true mortgage rates are at his-toric lows, these rates are only available to the most credit-worthy borrowers, essentially people with FICO scores above 700. Likewise, corporate bond rates are at historic lows, but only for the best companies, and generally not to those in-volved in real estate. During 2012 numerous housing indicators—prices, sales, construction—stabilized and began to improve. Part of the objective of the Federal Reserve’s program to purchase mort-gage backed securities was to induce banks to ease mortgage standards, thereby supporting and strengthening the nascent housing recovery. For example, many banks are not originat-ing mortgages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will buy in fear that the loans might go bad and they would be penalized. On the margin, the new program may induce banks to make more loans to borrowers with FICOs between 650 and 700 than otherwise. Despite supportive policy and improving indicators, credit will remain tight with the housing surplus still higher than the peak from the typical recession. In these conditions, housing construction is not expected to contrib-ute much to growth until late 2013. The housing sector will improve, but its recovery is still in the early stage. The Future of the Euro In 2001, the late Nobel laureate Milton Friedman predicted the Euro would come apart within 15 years. Friedman felt the economic and political systems of the individual European countries were too different to sustain one mone-tary standard. As crisis has become normal in the Eurozone, most observers and political leaders are sympathetic with Friedman’s view, but to date the logistics of deconstructing the Euro have been too difficult for policy-makers to con-template. Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT, argues the main problem confronting the Eurozone is an unbalanced trading system. In simplest terms, Germany exports and the rest of the Euro-zone imports. This situation can continue only so long as Germany is willing to fund the other countries. Germany’s export advantage results from labor productivity that is twice Greece’s. High productivity combined with the single curren-

cy makes its goods cheap, as long as Germany finances their purchase. During the 2000s, private German banks financed exports by investing in the importing countries. These investments were largely in the form of debt obligations of the sovereigns and the banks. For instance, on the eve of the crisis, June 30, 2007, Greek institutions—the national government, banks, business—owed German banks $37 billion. As the crisis progressed, private German lending to Greece stopped. By September 30, 2012, German bank loans to Greece had fallen to $27 billion, a decline of $10 billion, or 27%, from five years earlier. Private lending to finance exports to the Eurozone has been replaced by the Bundesbank through its credits with the Eu-ropean Central Bank (ECB). The Bundesbank accumulates these credits when Eurozone customers transfer money to Germany, but the local country does not have the money. The ECB processes the transfer as a credit for the Bundes-bank, and a debit for the other country’s central bank. The Bundesbank’s credit almost doubled between August 2011 and August 2012, increasing from €390 billion to €750 billion. The increase, €360 billion, or 14% of Germany’s GDP, is a combination of Eurozone purchases of German goods and the transfer of deposits and other financial assets from what are perceived as weak local banks to strong German banks. During the period the Bundesbank’s credits increased by 14% of GDP, much of the Spanish banking system collapsed, as local customers withdrew their deposits, often transferring the funds to Germany. A rescue package has been organized in which the banks will be recapitalized with €60 billion from the European Stability Mechanism and the ECB will buy Spanish government debt to lower yields, which were above 7% in September, 2012. Spain is just the latest in a line of countries whose difficulties cumulate into a situation Fried-man predicted would eventually unravel the Euro. Each of Germany’s trading partners, Greece initially in 2010, then Ireland and Portugal, now Spain, next Italy and perhaps ultimately France have run into difficulty funding themselves. Germany’s trade balance has increased from near 0 in 2000 to over 5% of GDP in 2012. Meanwhile, Greece’s balance was negative throughout the 2000s as it borrowed to finance a consumption boom, reaching -15% of GDP in 2008, but tapering down to -8% in 2012. Each major Eurozone coun-try has been running trade deficits, though none to the extent of Greece. Observers have reached a rough consensus on two possible futures for the Euro—neither adding to near term growth in the U.S. First, Europe muddles through the next twenty years, though probably not as well as Japan has muddled through the last twenty. In this case, Europe would not boost growth in the U.S., but it wouldn’t cause a recession, either. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, argues this


case, indirectly to be sure, when she says Europe is running a marathon on a “tough and strenuous” course. Alternatively, the Euro is deconstructed in a more-or-less orderly fashion. The leading proponent of this line is Vaclav Klaus, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. Germany returns to the Deutschmark, which appreciates. Spain, Italy, and France, respectively return to the Peseta, Lira, and Franc, which de-preciate to varying degrees in accord with labor productivity. The near term effects of this case are unlikely to be positive for the U.S., but in the medium term this should add to growth. A chaotic unraveling of the Euro is a third possibil-ity, but unlikely since the European authorities understand the situation they are in, and they possess the resources necessary to prevent this dire outcome. 2013 Outlook The consensus outlook for the U.S. economy is continuing slow progress with growth below potential. The fiscal cliff, evidence of Washington’s difficulty developing a balanced program for long-term federal operations, clouds the outlook during at least the first half of 2013. The extreme uncertainty of U.S. fiscal policy deters risk-taking, hampering growth. The Federal Reserve’s program to purchase $40 billion of mortgage backed securities per month could provide some limited support to the housing recovery’s initial stages. Euro-zone leaders will be challenged in managing the future of the Euro. Many observers feel the Euro’s design is fundamental-ly flawed, which has caused a recession in Europe and could be negative for the U.S. during 2013. Growth around the world is expected to slow next year. Emerging markets, par-ticularly China, India and Brazil, are all slowing, though reces-sion appears unlikely. Japan continues to add years to its third decade of a slumping economy. International trade, therefore, appears unlikely to spur the U.S. economy during 2013. U.S. nonfarm employment is expected to grow 1.7 million jobs, or 1.3%, in 2013, broadly similar to 2012. Narrowing down to specific sectors, however, changes the story a bit. The energy boom is expected to slow as oil prices stabilize, leading to a -3.1% decline in mining jobs, where this sector has grown strongly the past few years, often leading the econ-omy. Continuing uncertainty, both concerning what Wash-ington will do and the normal pattern following an epic finan-cial crisis, leads employers to extend temporary hiring another year. Administrative support then adds 380,000 jobs, or 4.8%, making it the fastest growing sector during 2013, both in the number of jobs and as a growth rate. Dissipating fear leads people to relax, spurring entertainment and recreation to grow 3.5%, the second fastest rate, or almost 70,000 jobs. The on-going recovery leads to almost 260,000 new profes-sional jobs, the second largest amount, and a rate of 3.2%. Production, shipping, and sales advance incrementally, as they have since the recession ended, making transportation the fourth fastest growing industry, at 3.0%. The need to ship 14.9 million cars and trucks, an additional 620,000, or 4.4%, is a main driver of this sector’s growth. While automobile man-

ufacturing jobs are expected to grow 4.1%, in line with car shipments, the broad manufacturing sector is expected to grow just 0.8%. Wholesale and retail trade combined adds 220,000 jobs, though their respective growth rates are 1.7% and 0.9%. As the initial stages of the housing recovery pro-gress, construction inches forward 1.3%, or over 70,000 jobs. The budget crunch in state and local government is expected to end during 2013, resulting in job losses of just -0.2%, or over 30,000 jobs. The prolonged restructuring of the postal service and a generally tight spending environment lead feder-al employment down -2.5%, a loss of 70,000 jobs. Conclusion Continuing slow progress remains the broad storyline, with the economy operating well below potential. Private sector activity in the U.S. is advancing, but Washington’s inability to develop a long-term balanced program to operate the federal government, signaled most ominously by the looming fiscal cliff, unnecessarily clouds the outlook. Housing is moving into the initial stages of recovery. Europe, already in reces-sion, will be challenged to manage its single currency as the likelihood of a serious financial crisis increases from slim to small. Emerging economies are slowing, though recession is not expected. International trade, then, does not appear to be a major source of growth for the U.S. in 2013. As usual for a major financial crisis, the return to normal takes too long.


Figure 1 United States Actual and Potential Gross Domestic Product

Figure 2 United States Nonfarm Payroll Employment

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

15,000

16,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Bil

lio

ns

of

Ch

ain

ed 2

005

Do

lla

rs

Actual Potential

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis and IHS Global Insight

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and IHS Global Insight

115

120

125

130

135

140

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mil

lio

ns

of

Jo

bs


Figure 3 Housing Surpluses and Shortages in the United States

Figure 4 Trade Balance in the Eurozone as a Percent of Gross Domestic Product


Source: International Monetary Fund

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

1960 1963 1966 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2002 2005 2008 2011

Mil

lio

ns

of

Ho

usi

ng

Un

its

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Germany France Greece Ireland Italy Portugal Spain


Figure 5 Labor Productivity in the U.S. and the Eurozone: 2005 Dollars of GDP per Hour Worked

Source: World Bank and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Germany France Greece Ireland Italy Spain United States


Table 1 United States Nonfarm Payroll Employment by Sector

2010 2011 2012e 2013f 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2010-1 2011-12 2012-13

Natural Resources & Mining 704 784 836 810 80 51 -25 11.3% 6.6% -3.1%Utilities 553 555 564 570 3 9 6 0.5% 1.6% 1.1%Construction 5,518 5,504 5,525 5,598 -14 21 73 -0.3% 0.4% 1.3%Manufacturing 11,527 11,736 11,959 12,056 209 222 97 1.8% 1.9% 0.8%Wholesale Trade 5,451 5,528 5,625 5,719 77 96 94 1.4% 1.7% 1.7%Retail Trade 14,443 14,644 14,760 14,886 200 116 126 1.4% 0.8% 0.9%Transportation & Warehousing 4,189 4,290 4,376 4,506 101 86 130 2.4% 2.0% 3.0%Information 2,707 2,658 2,638 2,671 -49 -21 34 -1.8% -0.8% 1.3%Finance & Insurance 5,718 5,751 5,783 5,848 33 31 65 0.6% 0.5% 1.1%Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 1,934 1,929 1,953 1,974 -5 23 22 -0.3% 1.2% 1.1%Professional, Scientific & Technical 7,441 7,692 7,946 8,201 251 254 255 3.4% 3.3% 3.2%Management of Companies 1,873 1,915 1,946 1,916 42 31 -30 2.3% 1.6% -1.5%Administrative Support 7,407 7,723 8,006 8,389 315 283 383 4.3% 3.7% 4.8%Educational Services 3,153 3,240 3,320 3,323 87 80 3 2.8% 2.5% 0.1%Health Care & Social Assistance 16,376 16,645 16,997 17,249 269 353 251 1.6% 2.1% 1.5%Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 1,909 1,909 1,928 1,997 0 20 68 0.0% 1.0% 3.5%Accommodation & Food Services 11,133 11,409 11,707 11,916 276 297 209 2.5% 2.6% 1.8%Other Services 5,331 5,342 5,374 5,433 11 33 59 0.2% 0.6% 1.1%State & Local 19,512 19,247 19,116 19,083 -265 -131 -33 -1.4% -0.7% -0.2%Federal 2,976 2,858 2,808 2,738 -119 -49 -70 -4.0% -1.7% -2.5%

Total 129,856 131,359 133,166 134,883 1,503 1,807 1,717 1.2% 1.4% 1.3%

e = estimatef = forecast

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and Global Insight

Annual ChangeAmount RateLevel

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 17 Utah Outlook UT

2012 Summary As 2012 opened Utah employment was growing below its long-term average of 3.1%. During the year, growth acceler-ated slightly above the long-term average, to 3.3%, with sup-port from construction and housing. Personal income, the broadest timely measure of economic activity at the state lev-el, grew 3.2% for the year as a whole, after adjusting for infla-tion, a bit below the long-term average of 3.8%. The unem-ployment rate averaged 5.9%, slightly above its long-term average, 5.3%. Construction employment increased 10.0%, or 6,500 jobs, in 2012, making it the fastest growing sector both as a rate, and by number of jobs. Mining was the second fastest growing sector, at 6.4%, or 740 jobs. Retail trade had the second larg-est amount of growth, 5,200 jobs, a rate of 3.7%. Employ-ment in the professional sector grew 5.4%, or 3,700 jobs. Health care grew by 3,800 jobs, which was a rate of 3.1%, lower than average. Utah’s coincident index of economic activity, constructed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, is designed to de-pict the level and direction of the economy. The index in-creased at a steady pace throughout 2012, reaching 191 in August, the same level as the previous peak in December 2007. The level 191 indicates economic activity is 91% higher than July 1992. Significant Issue: Housing Housing has recovered more rapidly in Utah than the U.S., but activity is still well below peak. Housing starts in the U.S. peaked at almost 2.1 million, at an annual rate, during April 2005, and about 28,000 in Utah in November 2005. If starts for the U.S. and Utah are indexed to 100 at their respective peaks, the U.S. bottomed at 27 during March 2010, while Utah bottomed at 33 in May 2010. The interpretation is that starts declined 73% in the U.S. and 67% in Utah, from peak, signifying the housing crash was slightly worse for the U.S. than for Utah. Likewise, as of August 2012, the index for starts has increased to 37 for the U.S., and 46 for Utah, indi-

cating a slightly stronger housing recovery for Utah than the U.S. Both home sales and prices have strengthened in Utah. Sales were above 4,000 per month for most of the period from July 2005 to March 2007. As the financial crisis intensified, sales fell to just above 2,000 during February 2009. The homebuy-er credit boosted sales to almost 3,000 during January 2010. After the credit expired, sales fell to 2,300 in September 2010. Since then, sales have steadily progressed reaching 3,200 in August 2012. Utah’s median home price peaked near $220,000 during spring 2007, and then declined to $170,000 in November 2011. Prices have since recovered steadily to $185,000, as of August 2012. 2013 Outlook As usual, Utah is recovering from the recession more quickly than the nation. Utah’s employment growth during 2012, 3.3%, was just above its long-term average, 3.1%, and more than twice the national rate, 1.4%. During 2013, Utah’s job growth is expected to grow at 3.2%, while the nation ticks down to 1.3%. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s leading index for Utah suggests economic activity will grow 2.0% over the first half of 2013, which is expected to contin-ue during the last half. With job growth near the long-term average, the unemployment rate will hold steady at 5.9%. In contrast to the early stages of the recovery, housing will pro-vide noticeable support to the expansion. Repeating its leading role from 2012, construction employ-ment will grow 9.2% in 2013, an increase of 6,600 jobs. The continuing housing recovery accounts for most of the strong showing in construction. At 8.1%, mining will be the second fastest growing sector, adding 1,000 jobs. Retail trade and administrative support will each add about 4,300 jobs, the second largest amount. Rising consumer spending will drive the retail expansion, while increasing business will drive the need for administrative support. Reflecting the rising de-mand for health care, employment in this sector will grow by 3,600 jobs, at a rate of 2.9%. Conclusion Utah is coming out of the recession more rapidly than the U.S., as has been the case with every downturn since World War II. Job growth in Utah will be twice the nation’s, but will stabilize just above the long term average. Housing and con-struction will play a leading role in the strengthening recovery.

Utah Outlook

Historically Utah grows more rapidly than the nation, with the broader national business cycle governing local recessions and expansions. The current recession and recovery track this general course. Both Utah and the U.S. began growing during the summer of 2009, but unemployment has remained well above pre-recession levels. Over the past two years as the recovery has progressed, both employment and income in Utah have grown more rapidly than in the U.S. The state has especially benefitted from its position as a logistical hub for production and distribution to the west coast, and, more re-cently, the entire U.S. Utah’s economic growth has acceler-ated during each of the years since the recession ended, but is expected to plateau near the long-term average during 2013.


Figure 6 Nonfarm Payroll Employment in Utah

Figure 7 Utah Economic Indices

Source: Department of Workforce Services, Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, and Revenue Assumptions Working Group

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Job

s

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Lea

din

g In

dex

Co

inci

den

t In

dex

Coincident Leading


Figure 8 Housing Starts in the United States and Utah Indexed to 100 at Peak of Current Cycle

Figure 9 Homes in Utah: Sales and Median Price

Source: Moody’s Analytics and Governor’s Office of Management and Budget

Source: Utah Association of Realtors and Governor’s Office of Management and Budget

$140,000

$150,000

$160,000

$170,000

$180,000

$190,000

$200,000

$210,000

$220,000

$230,000

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Pri

ce

Sa

les

Sales Price

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Co

inc

iden

t In

dex

Utah United States


Table 2 Utah Nonfarm Payroll Employment by Sector

2010 2011 2012e 2013f 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Mining 10,442 11,659 12,400 13,400 1,217 741 1,000 11.7% 6.4% 8.1%Utilities 4,064 4,021 3,998 3,951 -43 -23 -47 -1.1% -0.6% -1.2%Construction 65,223 65,166 71,700 78,300 -57 6,534 6,600 -0.1% 10.0% 9.2%Manufacturing 111,075 113,684 116,900 119,700 2,609 3,216 2,800 2.3% 2.8% 2.4%Wholesale Trade 44,039 46,075 48,155 49,814 2,036 2,080 1,659 4.6% 4.5% 3.4%Retail Trade 137,946 138,510 143,676 148,016 564 5,166 4,340 0.4% 3.7% 3.0%Transportation & Warehousing 43,083 44,644 46,071 47,518 1,561 1,427 1,447 3.6% 3.2% 3.1%Information 29,276 29,495 31,000 32,300 219 1,505 1,300 0.7% 5.1% 4.2%Finance & Insurance 51,729 51,854 52,537 54,069 125 683 1,532 0.2% 1.3% 2.9%Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 16,249 16,537 16,463 16,932 288 -74 469 1.8% -0.4% 2.9%Professional, Scientific & Technical 65,224 68,064 71,725 75,427 2,840 3,661 3,701 4.4% 5.4% 5.2%Management of Companies 18,627 18,630 18,897 19,297 3 267 400 0.0% 1.4% 2.1%Administrative Support 68,485 72,726 76,378 80,676 4,241 3,652 4,298 6.2% 5.0% 5.6%Educational Services 34,766 36,184 36,736 37,808 1,418 552 1,072 4.1% 1.5% 2.9%Health Care & Social Assistance 120,239 123,026 126,864 130,492 2,787 3,838 3,628 2.3% 3.1% 2.9%Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 17,423 17,903 18,843 19,493 480 940 651 2.8% 5.2% 3.5%Accommodation & Food Services 93,202 95,609 99,057 102,207 2,407 3,448 3,149 2.6% 3.6% 3.2%Other Services 33,624 34,090 34,800 35,600 466 710 800 1.4% 2.1% 2.3%State & Local 179,246 184,163 187,568 189,847 4,917 3,405 2,279 2.7% 1.8% 1.2%Federal 37,657 36,609 35,132 35,153 -1,048 -1,477 21 -2.8% -4.0% 0.1%

Total 1,181,619 1,208,649 1,248,900 1,290,000 27,030 40,251 41,100 2.3% 3.3% 3.3%

e = estimatef = forecast


Annual ChangeAmount RateLevel

Economic Indicators

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 23 Demographics UT

2011 State and County Population Estimates Utah's counties experienced varying growth rates in 2011. Differing from recent years, the most rapid growth rates oc-curred in counties along the Wasatch Back and in the Uintah Basin area of the state, as well as in counties adjacent to larger population centers. Counties that grew faster than the state rate of 1.4% were Daggett, with the highest growth rate of 3.5%, followed by Wasatch (3.3%), Duchesne (2.4%), Utah (2.2%), Uintah (2.1%), Morgan (2.1%), Summit (1.9%), Washington (1.8%), and Davis (1.6%) counties. Five coun-ties had a decrease in population from 2010 to 2011. These counties are located in the central and southwest areas of the state. They are Emery (-0.2%), Beaver (-0.6%), Garfield (-0.7%), Piute (-0.8%), and Wayne (-1.6%) counties. Components of Population Change Annual changes in population are comprised of two compo-nents: natural increase and net migration. In 2011, Utah had 51,734 births, below the record of 55,357 set in 2008. Deaths in 2011 set a record high totaling 14,787. The resulting natu-ral increase of 36,947 persons accounted for 94.1% of Utah's population growth in 2011. This is an increase from the pre-vious year's share of 89.6% and higher than the ten-year aver-age of 77.5%. Annual fluctuations in natural increase may result from changes in the size, age structure, and vital rates (fertility and mortality) of the population. The total fertility rate represents the average number of children expected to be born to a woman during her lifetime. Utah's fertility rate, 2.45 in 2010, continues to be the highest among states nation-wide.

Net migration is the other component of population change. For a given period, net migration is in-migration minus out-migration, or the number of people moving into the state minus the number of people moving out. Net in-migration in 2011 was 2,313 people, or 5.9% of the total population in-crease. Utah's Young Population Utah's population growth rate continues to exceed that of the nation. In comparison to other states, Utah's population is younger, women tend to have more children, households on average are larger, and people tend to live longer. All these factors lead to an age structure that is unique to Utah. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, in 2011 Utah had the highest share of total population in the preschool age group of any state in the country at 9.3%. Utah also ranks first among states with 21.9% of its population in the school-age group of 5 to 17. Utah had the smallest working-age popula-tion in the nation, with 59.6% of Utahns between the ages of 18 and 64. With such a young population, Utah has one of the smallest retirement-age populations, with 9.2% of the total population age 65 and older; only Alaska at 8.1% had a smaller share. Another way to look at the age structure of a population is to examine the dependency ratio, which is the number of non-working-age persons (younger than 18 and older than 65) per 100 persons of working-age (18 to 64). The U.S. Census Bu-reau reported that Utah's total dependency ratio for 2011 was 67.9, compared to a national dependency ratio of 58.8. July 1, 2011 Census Bureau Population Estimates According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Utah's population reached 2,817,222 in 2011, increasing by 41,743 people, or 1.5% from 2010 to 2011. The District of Columbia had a growth rate of 2.2% and ranked first, Texas ranked second at 1.7% and Utah ranked third. North Dakota ranked fourth (1.4%) and Colorado ranked fifth (1.4%). July 1, 2011 Census Bureau County Population Estimates Salt Lake County continued to be the largest county in the state with a population of 1,048,985, followed by Utah (530,499), Davis (311,811), Weber (234,420), and Washington (141,666) counties. Daggett County grew the fastest (8.4%), followed by Wasatch (3.0%), Summit (2.9%), Washington (2.3%), and Uintah (2.2%) counties. Emery, Carbon, Gar-field, Beaver, Wayne, and Piute Counties all lost population from 2010 to 2011. July 1, 2011 Census Bureau City Population Estimates Salt Lake City was the largest city in the state in 2011, with a population of 189,899, followed by West Valley City (131,942), Provo (115,321), West Jordan (105,675), and Orem (90,727). Among the state's largest cities, with populations greater than 9,000 persons, Heber was the state's fastest

Demographics

The State of Utah’s official July 1, 2011 population was esti-mated to be 2,813,923, an increase of 1.4% from 2010, ac-cording to the Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC). This is lower than the decade high growth of 3.1% experienced in 2005. A total of 39,260 people were added to Utah’s population, with 5.9% of this increase coming from people moving into the state. Utah’s unique characteristics of a high fertility rate and low mortality consistently contribute to strong natural increase, the difference between births and deaths. The 51,734 births led to a strong natural increase of 36,947. Deaths within the state totaled 14,787 in 2011. Nat-ural increase accounted for 94.1% of total population growth. UPEC estimates for 2000-2009 were revised following the release of the 2010 Census. The Census Bureau produces population estimates which differ from UPEC estimates due to different estimation methodologies. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's July 1, 2011 population estimate, Utah's population increased to 2,817,222. Utah ranked third among states in population growth with a rate of 1.5% from 2010 to 2011. Utah contin-ues to have a distinctive demographic profile. The state's population is younger, women tend to have more children, people live in larger households, and live longer.


growing municipality. Heber increased 3.0% from 2010 to 2011, followed by Washington (2.3%), St. George (2.3%), Hurricane (2.3%) and Vernal (2.2%). Race and Hispanic Origin Counts In 2011, 97.8% of Utahns were identified as single race by the Census Bureau. Among those who were of a single race, the majority were White (91.9%), followed by Asian (2.2%), American Indian and Alaska Native (1.5%), Black or African American (1.3%), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Is-lander (1.0%). The Hispanic population in Utah increased 3.1% from 361,583 in 2010 to 372,912 in 2011. In 1990, His-panics accounted for 4.9% of the state's population. Utah's Hispanic population as a percent of total continued to in-crease, from 9.0% of the population in 2000 to 13.0% in 2010, and 13.2% in 2011.


Figure 10 Utah Population Growth Rates by County: 2010 to 2011


Box Elder0.7%

Cache1.3%

Rich0.3%

Weber 0.5%

Tooele1.2%

Salt Lake1.2%

Morgan2.1%

Summit1.9%

Daggett 3.5%

Utah2.2%

Wasatch3.3% Duchesne

2.4% Uintah2.1%

Juab0.7%

Sanpete0.9%

Carbon0.1%

Emery-0.2% Grand

1.0%

Millard0.6%

Piute-0.8%

Garfield-0.4%

Sevier0.3%

Wayne-1.6%

San Juan1.4%

Iron1.1%

Beaver-0.6%

Washington1.8%

Kane1.0%

Davis 1.6%

State Average = 1.4%


Population Loss

Increase of 2.4% or greater




Figure 11 State of Utah Components of Population Change

Figure 12 Total Fertility for Utah and the United States



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

196

0

196

2

196

4

196

6

196

8

197

0

197

2

197

4

197

6

197

8

198

0

198

2

198

4

198

6

198

8

199

0

199

2

199

4

199

6

199

8

200

0

200

2

200

4

200

6

200

8

201

0

Utah U.S. Replacement Level

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,00019

50

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

2010

Population Change Natural Increase Net Migration


Figure 13 Utah Total Population

Figure 14 Fastest Growing Cities in Utah (9,000+)



276,749373,351

449,396507,847 550,310

688,862

890,627

1,059,273

1,461,037

1,722,850

2,233,169

2,763,885

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

2.1%

2.2%

2.2%

2.3%

2.3%

3.0%

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%

Eagle Mountain

Santaquin

Lindon

Saratoga Springs

Alpine

Vernal

Hurricane

St. George

Washington

Heber


Figure 15 Utah Family Characteristics as a Percent of Total Households


5%

27%

42%

69%

48%

78%

6%

27%

38%

65%

45%

76%

6%

28%

35%

63%

43%

76%

7%

27%

34%

61%

39%

75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Female, with Children

Married, No Children

Married, with Children

Married Couples

Families with Children

Total Families

2010 2000 1990 1980


Table 3 Utah Population Estimates, Net Migration, Births and Deaths

Net Migrationas a Percent of

July 1st Percent Net Previous Year's Natural Fiscal Year Fiscal YearYear Population Change Increase Migration Population Increase Births Deaths

1980 1,474,000 4.1% 58,050 24,536 1.7% 33,514 41,645 8,1311981 1,515,000 2.8% 41,000 7,612 0.5% 33,388 41,509 8,1211982 1,558,000 2.8% 43,000 9,662 0.6% 33,338 41,773 8,4351983 1,595,000 2.4% 37,000 4,914 0.3% 32,086 40,555 8,4691984 1,622,000 1.7% 27,000 -2,793 -0.2% 29,793 38,643 8,8501985 1,643,000 1.3% 21,000 -7,714 -0.5% 28,714 37,664 8,9501986 1,663,000 1.2% 20,000 -8,408 -0.5% 28,408 37,309 8,9011987 1,678,000 0.9% 15,000 -11,713 -0.7% 26,713 35,631 8,9181988 1,690,000 0.7% 12,000 -14,557 -0.9% 26,557 35,809 9,2521989 1,706,000 0.9% 16,000 -10,355 -0.6% 26,355 35,439 9,0841990 1,729,227 1.4% 23,227 -3,480 -0.2% 26,707 35,830 9,1231991 1,780,870 3.0% 51,643 24,878 1.4% 26,765 36,194 9,4291992 1,838,149 3.2% 57,279 30,042 1.6% 27,237 36,796 9,5591993 1,889,393 2.8% 51,244 24,561 1.3% 26,683 36,738 10,0551994 1,946,721 3.0% 57,328 30,116 1.5% 27,212 37,623 10,4111995 1,995,228 2.5% 48,507 20,024 1.0% 28,483 39,064 10,5811996 2,042,893 2.4% 47,665 18,171 0.9% 29,494 40,495 11,0011997 2,099,409 2.8% 56,516 25,253 1.2% 31,263 42,512 11,2491998 2,141,632 2.0% 42,223 9,745 0.5% 32,478 44,126 11,6481999 2,193,014 2.4% 51,382 17,584 0.8% 33,798 45,434 11,6362000 2,246,467 2.4% 53,453 18,526 0.8% 34,927 46,880 11,9532001 2,290,632 2.0% 44,165 8,914 0.4% 35,251 47,688 12,4372002 2,331,826 1.8% 41,194 5,815 0.3% 35,379 48,041 12,6622003 2,372,457 1.7% 40,631 3,911 0.2% 36,720 49,518 12,7982004 2,430,224 2.4% 57,767 20,522 0.9% 37,245 50,527 13,2822005 2,505,844 3.1% 75,620 38,108 1.6% 37,512 50,431 12,9192006 2,576,228 2.8% 70,384 31,374 1.3% 39,010 52,368 13,3582007 2,636,077 2.3% 59,849 19,676 0.8% 40,173 53,953 13,7802008 2,691,122 2.1% 55,045 13,468 0.5% 41,577 55,357 13,7802009 2,731,558 1.5% 40,437 -326 0.0% 40,763 54,548 13,7852010 2,774,663 1.6% 43,104 4,501 0.2% 38,603 52,898 14,2952011 2,813,923 1.4% 39,260 2,313 0.1% 36,947 51,734 14,787

Notes:1. In 1996, the Utah Population Estimates Committee changed its convention on rounded estimates so

it now publishes unrounded estimates. Accordingly, the revised estimates for 1990 and thereafter are not rounded.

2. The Utah Population Estimates Committee revised the population estimates for the years from 2000 to 2009 following the results of the 2010 Census.



Table 4 Utah Population Estimates by County

Census 2010 - 2011 2011April 1, July 1, July 1, Absolute Percent % of Total

County 2010 2010 2011 Change Change Population

Beaver 6,629 6,655 6,615 -40 -0.6% 0.24%Box Elder 49,975 50,110 50,466 356 0.7% 1.79%Cache 112,656 113,272 114,721 1,449 1.3% 4.08%Carbon 21,403 21,463 21,485 22 0.1% 0.76%Daggett 1,059 1,078 1,115 37 3.5% 0.04%Davis 306,479 307,550 312,603 5,053 1.6% 11.11%Duchesne 18,607 18,665 19,111 446 2.4% 0.68%Emery 10,976 11,018 10,997 -21 -0.2% 0.39%Garfield 5,172 5,184 5,149 -35 -0.7% 0.18%Grand 9,225 9,231 9,322 91 1.0% 0.33%Iron 46,163 46,272 46,767 495 1.1% 1.66%Juab 10,246 10,253 10,323 70 0.7% 0.37%Kane 7,125 7,137 7,208 71 1.0% 0.26%Millard 12,503 12,516 12,591 75 0.6% 0.45%Morgan 9,469 9,469 9,668 199 2.1% 0.34%Piute 1,556 1,556 1,544 -12 -0.8% 0.05%Rich 2,264 2,270 2,276 6 0.3% 0.08%Salt Lake 1,029,655 1,033,299 1,045,829 12,530 1.2% 37.17%San Juan 14,746 14,742 14,954 212 1.4% 0.53%Sanpete 27,822 27,914 28,173 259 0.9% 1.00%Sevier 20,802 20,839 20,903 64 0.3% 0.74%Summit 36,324 36,496 37,208 712 1.9% 1.32%Tooele 58,218 58,422 59,133 711 1.2% 2.10%Uintah 32,588 32,619 33,315 696 2.1% 1.18%Utah 516,564 519,299 530,789 11,490 2.2% 18.86%Wasatch 23,530 23,682 24,456 774 3.3% 0.87%Washington 138,115 138,761 141,219 2,458 1.8% 5.02%Wayne 2,778 2,788 2,742 -46 -1.6% 0.10%Weber 231,236 232,102 233,241 1,139 0.5% 8.29%

MCD

Bear River 164,895 165,652 167,463 1,811 1.1% 5.95%Central 75,707 75,866 76,276 410 0.5% 2.71%Mountainland 576,418 579,478 592,453 12,975 2.2% 21.05%Southeastern 56,350 56,453 56,758 305 0.5% 2.02%Southwestern 203,204 204,010 206,958 2,948 1.4% 7.35%Uintah Basin 52,254 52,362 53,541 1,179 2.3% 1.90%Wasatch Front 1,635,057 1,640,842 1,660,474 19,632 1.2% 59.01%

State of Utah 2,763,885 2,774,663 2,813,923 39,260 1.4% 100.00%

Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to rounding.

Elder, Cache, and Rich counties; Central MCD: Juab, Millard, Piute, Sanpete, Sevier, and Wayne counties; Mountainland MCD: Summit, Utah, and Wasatch counties; Southeastern MCD: Carbon, Emery, Grand, and San Juan counties; Southwestern MCD: Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane and Washington counties; Uintah Basin MCD: Daggett, Duchesne, and Uintah counties; Wasatch Front MCD: Davis, Morgan, Salt Lake, Tooele, and Weber Counties.

Sources: April 1, 2010: U.S. Census BureauJuly 2010-2011: Utah Population Estimates Committee

2. The MCDs are multi-county districts and are divided as follows: Bear River MCD: Box


Table 5 U.S. Census Bureau National and State Population Estimates

Rank 2010-2011 2010-2011 Based on

April 1, 2010 2010 July 1, 2010 2010 July 1, 2011 2011 Absolute Percent PercentArea Population Rank Population Rank Population Rank Change Change Change

U.S. 308,745,538 na 309,330,219 na 311,591,917 na 2,261,698 0.7% na

RegionNortheast 55,317,240 4 55,366,108 4 55,521,598 4 155,490 0.3% 3Midwest 66,927,001 3 66,976,458 3 67,158,835 3 182,377 0.3% 4South 114,555,744 1 114,857,529 1 116,046,736 1 1,189,207 1.0% 1West 71,945,553 2 72,130,124 2 72,864,748 2 734,624 1.0% 2

StateAlabama 4,779,736 23 4,785,401 23 4,802,740 23 17,339 0.4% 36Alaska 710,231 47 714,146 47 722,718 47 8,572 1.2% 7Arizona 6,392,017 16 6,413,158 16 6,482,505 16 69,347 1.1% 9Arkansas 2,915,918 32 2,921,588 32 2,937,979 32 16,391 0.6% 30California 37,253,956 1 37,338,198 1 37,691,912 1 353,714 0.9% 12Colorado 5,029,196 22 5,047,692 22 5,116,796 22 69,104 1.4% 5Connecticut 3,574,097 29 3,575,498 29 3,580,709 29 5,211 0.1% 44Delaware 897,934 45 899,792 45 907,135 45 7,343 0.8% 20District of Columbia 601,723 50 604,912 50 617,996 50 13,084 2.2% 1Florida 18,801,310 4 18,838,613 4 19,057,542 4 218,929 1.2% 8Georgia 9,687,653 9 9,712,157 9 9,815,210 9 103,053 1.1% 10Hawaii 1,360,301 40 1,363,359 40 1,374,810 40 11,451 0.8% 18Idaho 1,567,582 39 1,571,102 39 1,584,985 39 13,883 0.9% 16Illinios 12,830,632 5 12,841,980 5 12,869,257 5 27,277 0.2% 42Indiana 6,483,802 15 6,490,622 15 6,516,922 15 26,300 0.4% 34Iowa 3,046,355 30 3,050,202 30 3,062,309 30 12,107 0.4% 35Kansas 2,853,118 33 2,859,143 33 2,871,238 33 12,095 0.4% 33Kentucky 4,339,367 26 4,347,223 26 4,369,356 26 22,133 0.5% 31Louisiana 4,533,372 25 4,545,343 25 4,574,836 25 29,493 0.6% 27Maine 1,328,361 41 1,327,379 41 1,328,188 41 809 0.1% 47Maryland 5,773,552 19 5,785,681 19 5,828,289 19 42,608 0.7% 22Massachusetts 6,547,629 14 6,555,466 14 6,587,536 14 32,070 0.5% 32Michigan 9,883,640 8 9,877,143 8 9,876,187 8 -956 0.0% 50Minnesota 5,303,925 21 5,310,658 21 5,344,861 21 34,203 0.6% 28Mississippi 2,967,297 31 2,970,072 31 2,978,512 31 8,440 0.3% 39Missouri 5,988,927 18 5,995,715 18 6,010,688 18 14,973 0.2% 40Montana 989,415 44 990,958 44 998,199 44 7,241 0.7% 23Nebraska 1,826,341 38 1,830,141 38 1,842,641 38 12,500 0.7% 26Nevada 2,700,551 35 2,704,283 35 2,723,322 35 19,039 0.7% 25New Hampshire 1,316,470 42 1,316,807 42 1,318,194 42 1,387 0.1% 45New Jersey 8,791,894 11 8,799,593 11 8,821,155 11 21,562 0.2% 41New Mexico 2,059,179 36 2,065,913 36 2,082,224 36 16,311 0.8% 21New York 19,378,102 3 19,395,206 3 19,465,197 3 69,991 0.4% 37North Carolina 9,535,483 10 9,560,234 10 9,656,401 10 96,167 1.0% 11North Dakota 672,591 48 674,629 48 683,932 48 9,303 1.4% 4Ohio 11,536,504 7 11,537,968 7 11,544,951 7 6,983 0.1% 48Oklahoma 3,751,351 28 3,760,184 28 3,791,508 28 31,324 0.8% 19Oregon 3,831,074 27 3,838,332 27 3,871,859 27 33,527 0.9% 17Pennsylvania 12,702,379 6 12,717,722 6 12,742,886 6 25,164 0.2% 43Rhode Island 1,052,567 43 1,052,528 43 1,051,302 43 -1,226 -0.1% 51South Carolina 4,625,364 24 4,637,106 24 4,679,230 24 42,124 0.9% 14South Dakota 814,180 46 816,598 46 824,082 46 7,484 0.9% 13Tennessee 6,346,105 17 6,357,436 17 6,403,353 17 45,917 0.7% 24Texas 25,145,561 2 25,253,466 2 25,674,681 2 421,215 1.7% 2Utah 2,763,885 34 2,775,479 34 2,817,222 34 41,743 1.5% 3Vermont 625,741 49 625,909 49 626,431 49 522 0.1% 46Virginia 8,001,024 12 8,023,953 12 8,096,604 12 72,651 0.9% 15Washington 6,724,540 13 6,742,950 13 6,830,038 13 87,088 1.3% 6West Virginia 1,852,994 37 1,854,368 37 1,855,364 37 996 0.1% 49Wisconsin 5,686,986 20 5,691,659 20 5,711,767 20 20,108 0.4% 38Wyoming 563,626 51 564,554 51 568,158 51 3,604 0.6% 29



Tabl

e 6

Ran

king

s of

Sta

tes

by S

elec

ted

Age

Gro

ups

as a

Per

cent

of T

otal

Pop

ulat

ion:

Jul

y 1,

201

1

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Perc

ent

Med

ian

Ran

kSt

ate

Popu

latio

nSt

ate

Popu

latio

nof

Tot

alSt

ate

Popu

latio

nof

Tot

alSt

ate

Popu

latio

nof

Tot

alSt

ate

Popu

latio

nof

Tot

alSt

ate

Age

Uni

ted

Stat

es31

1,59

1,91

7U

nite

d St

ates

20,1

62,0

586.

5%U

nite

d St

ates

53,7

72,2

1417

.3%

Uni

ted

Stat

es19

6,26

3,50

463

.0%

Uni

ted

Stat

es41

,394

,141

13.3

%U

nite

d St

ates

37.3

1C

alifo

rnia

37,6

91,9

12U

tah

262,

121

9.3%

Uta

h61

8,18

821

.9%

Dist

rict o

f Col

umbi

a44

2,48

371

.6%

Flor

ida

3,36

0,19

517

.6%

Mai

ne43

.22

Texa

s25

,674

,681

Texa

s1,

959,

608

7.6%

Idah

o30

8,78

019

.5%

Alas

ka47

6,06

465

.9%

Mai

ne21

6,21

816

.3%

Verm

ont

41.9

3N

ew Y

ork

19,4

65,1

97Al

aska

54,5

437.

5%Te

xas

5,00

1,13

019

.5%

Verm

ont

406,

291

64.9

%W

est V

irgin

ia30

0,97

016

.2%

New

Ham

pshi

re41

.64

Flor

ida

19,0

57,5

42Id

aho

119,

336

7.5%

Alas

ka13

3,89

818

.5%

New

Ham

pshi

re85

3,83

464

.8%

Penn

sylv

ania

1,98

1,56

515

.6%

Wes

t Virg

inia

41.5

5Illi

nois

12,8

69,2

57So

uth

Dak

ota

59,5

917.

2%G

eorg

ia1,

806,

407

18.4

%C

olor

ado

3,31

0,88

864

.7%

Mon

tana

151,

452

15.2

%Fl

orid

a41

.16

Penn

sylv

ania

12,7

42,8

86N

ebra

ska

131,

472

7.1%

Miss

issip

pi54

0,98

918

.2%

Mas

sach

uset

ts4,

260,

632

64.7

%Ve

rmon

t94

,122

15.0

%Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia40

.47

Ohi

o11

,544

,951

Kans

as20

3,65

57.

1%Ar

izona

1,17

4,93

018

.1%

Virg

inia

5,23

1,99

564

.6%

Iow

a45

7,73

814

.9%

Con

necti

cut

40.3

8M

ichig

an9,

876,

187

Okla

hom

a26

6,41

57.

0%Ka

nsas

520,

267

18.1

%R

hode

Isla

nd67

7,62

364

.5%

Haw

aii

202,

544

14.7

%M

onta

na40

.09

Geo

rgia

9,81

5,21

0M

ississ

ippi

209,

250

7.0%

New

Mex

ico37

3,67

117

.9%

Mar

ylan

d3,

752,

166

64.4

%D

elaw

are

133,

464

14.7

%R

hode

Isla

nd39

.710

Nor

th C

arol

ina

9,65

6,40

1N

ew M

exico

145,

748

7.0%

Indi

ana

1,16

7,73

917

.9%

New

Yor

k12

,514

,495

64.3

%R

hode

Isla

nd15

4,14

314

.7%

Mas

sach

uset

ts39

.311

New

Jer

sey

8,82

1,15

5G

eorg

ia68

3,45

17.

0%C

alifo

rnia

6,73

3,13

317

.9%

Was

hing

ton

4,38

3,40

864

.2%

Arka

nsas

429,

099

14.6

%M

ichig

an39

.212

Virg

inia

8,09

6,60

4W

yom

ing

39,5

497.

0%N

ebra

ska

328,

593

17.8

%C

alifo

rnia

24,0

21,3

6963

.7%

Nor

th D

akot

a98

,595

14.4

%N

ew J

erse

y39

.213

Was

hing

ton

6,83

0,03

8Ar

izona

450,

184

6.9%

Okla

hom

a66

9,74

417

.7%

Geo

rgia

6,24

7,84

063

.7%

Sout

h D

akot

a11

8,65

314

.4%

Del

awar

e39

.114

Mas

sach

uset

ts6,

587,

536

Loui

siana

316,

783

6.9%

Illino

is2,

269,

889

17.6

%W

yom

ing

360,

954

63.5

%C

onne

cticu

t51

5,45

914

.4%

Ohi

o39

.115

Indi

ana

6,51

6,92

2N

evad

a18

6,44

06.

8%N

evad

a47

7,33

517

.5%

Nor

th D

akot

a43

4,18

163

.5%

Ore

gon

553,

061

14.3

%W

iscon

sin38

.716

Arizo

na6,

482,

505

Cal

iforn

ia2,

538,

786

6.7%

Loui

siana

801,

413

17.5

%M

aine

842,

752

63.5

%O

hio

1,64

8,44

414

.3%

Ore

gon

38.6

17Te

nnes

see

6,40

3,35

3C

olor

ado

342,

154

6.7%

Arka

nsas

514,

129

17.5

%O

rego

n2,

455,

031

63.4

%Ar

izona

921,

835

14.2

%H

awai

i38

.518

Miss

ouri

6,01

0,68

8Ar

kans

as19

6,34

56.

7%So

uth

Dak

ota

143,

565

17.4

%Illi

nois

8,13

0,36

763

.2%

Miss

ouri

854,

652

14.2

%Te

nnes

see

38.3

19M

aryl

and

5,82

8,28

9In

dian

a42

9,86

46.

6%C

olor

ado

887,

934

17.4

%C

onne

cticu

t2,

261,

936

63.2

%So

uth

Car

olin

a65

8,56

114

.1%

Kent

ucky

38.2

20W

iscon

sin5,

711,

767

Min

neso

ta35

2,26

06.

6%M

ichig

an1,

711,

422

17.3

%N

evad

a1,

720,

069

63.2

%M

ichig

an1,

389,

155

14.1

%So

uth

Car

olin

a38

.221

Min

neso

ta5,

344,

861

Nor

th D

akot

a45

,049

6.6%

Min

neso

ta92

5,26

617

.3%

New

Jer

sey

5,56

9,98

563

.1%

Alab

ama

672,

586

14.0

%Io

wa

38.1

22C

olor

ado

5,11

6,79

6N

orth

Car

olin

a62

9,79

16.

5%O

hio

1,98

2,73

217

.2%

Haw

aii

867,

662

63.1

%M

assa

chus

etts

921,

889

14.0

%M

aryl

and

38.1

23Al

abam

a4,

802,

740

Iow

a19

9,35

36.

5%N

orth

Car

olin

a1,

657,

802

17.2

%Ke

ntuc

ky2,

756,

550

63.1

%N

ew H

amps

hire

184,

376

14.0

%M

issou

ri38

.124

Sout

h C

arol

ina

4,67

9,23

0W

ashi

ngto

n44

3,60

56.

5%Io

wa

525,

017

17.1

%N

orth

Car

olin

a6,

090,

022

63.1

%W

iscon

sin79

2,62

013

.9%

New

Yor

k38

.125

Loui

siana

4,57

4,83

6So

uth

Car

olin

a30

2,67

06.

5%Al

abam

a82

3,23

817

.1%

Loui

siana

2,88

4,20

063

.0%

Tenn

esse

e87

9,65

113

.7%

Alab

ama

38.0

26Ke

ntuc

ky4,

369,

356

Haw

aii

88,5

056.

4%M

issou

ri1,

027,

828

17.1

%W

est V

irgin

ia1,

169,

600

63.0

%N

ew J

erse

y1,

208,

360

13.7

%Ar

kans

as37

.627

Ore

gon

3,87

1,85

9Illi

nois

828,

236

6.4%

New

Jer

sey

1,50

6,92

117

.1%

Min

neso

ta3,

365,

567

63.0

%N

ew Y

ork

2,66

4,69

413

.7%

Nor

th C

arol

ina

37.6

28O

klaho

ma

3,79

1,50

8Ke

ntuc

ky28

1,16

16.

4%W

iscon

sin97

1,62

617

.0%

Tenn

esse

e4,

031,

566

63.0

%O

klaho

ma

517,

654

13.7

%M

inne

sota

37.5

29C

onne

cticu

t3,

580,

709

Miss

ouri

384,

293

6.4%

Tenn

esse

e1,

087,

119

17.0

%W

iscon

sin3,

592,

939

62.9

%N

ebra

ska

250,

382

13.6

%Vi

rgin

ia37

.530

Iow

a3,

062,

309

Alab

ama

303,

905

6.3%

Kent

ucky

739,

794

16.9

%So

uth

Car

olin

a2,

940,

114

62.8

%N

ew M

exico

282,

375

13.6

%W

ashi

ngto

n37

.331

Miss

issip

pi2,

978,

512

Tenn

esse

e40

5,01

76.

3%C

onne

cticu

t60

6,21

816

.9%

Penn

sylv

ania

8,00

0,16

262

.8%

Kent

ucky

591,

851

13.5

%In

dian

a37

.132

Arka

nsas

2,93

7,97

9Vi

rgin

ia51

0,18

76.

3%M

aryl

and

980,

482

16.8

%D

elaw

are

569,

003

62.7

%Ka

nsas

382,

661

13.3

%So

uth

Dak

ota

36.9

33Ka

nsas

2,87

1,23

8M

aryl

and

366,

153

6.3%

Wyo

min

g95

,388

16.8

%M

ichig

an6,

191,

220

62.7

%N

orth

Car

olin

a1,

278,

786

13.2

%W

yom

ing

36.9

34U

tah

2,81

7,22

2W

iscon

sin35

4,58

26.

2%W

ashi

ngto

n1,

138,

152

16.7

%M

onta

na62

4,39

362

.6%

Indi

ana

858,

087

13.2

%Illi

nois

36.8

35N

evad

a2,

723,

322

Mon

tana

61,7

686.

2%So

uth

Car

olin

a77

7,88

516

.6%

Alab

ama

3,00

3,01

162

.5%

Min

neso

ta70

1,76

813

.1%

New

Mex

ico36

.736

New

Mex

ico2,

082,

224

Ohi

o71

0,36

06.

2%Vi

rgin

ia1,

343,

359

16.6

%O

hio

7,20

3,41

562

.4%

Miss

issip

pi38

8,07

113

.0%

Nor

th D

akot

a36

.737

Wes

t Virg

inia

1,85

5,36

4D

elaw

are

55,7

296.

1%D

elaw

are

148,

939

16.4

%Te

xas

16,0

07,9

1462

.3%

Idah

o20

2,43

312

.8%

Nev

ada

36.6

38N

ebra

ska

1,84

2,64

1O

rego

n23

6,62

86.

1%O

rego

n62

7,13

916

.2%

Indi

ana

4,06

1,23

262

.3%

Illino

is1,

640,

765

12.7

%Ar

izona

36.3

39Id

aho

1,58

4,98

5N

ew J

erse

y53

5,88

96.

1%N

ew H

amps

hire

212,

334

16.1

%M

issou

ri3,

743,

915

62.3

%W

yom

ing

72,2

6712

.7%

Col

orad

o36

.240

Haw

aii

1,37

4,81

0N

ew Y

ork

1,16

3,58

06.

0%M

onta

na16

0,58

616

.1%

Miss

issip

pi1,

840,

202

61.8

%W

ashi

ngto

n86

4,87

312

.7%

Neb

rask

a36

.241

Mai

ne1,

328,

188

Mich

igan

584,

390

5.9%

New

Yor

k3,

122,

428

16.0

%O

klaho

ma

2,33

7,69

561

.7%

Mar

ylan

d72

9,48

812

.5%

Okla

hom

a36

.242

New

Ham

pshi

re1,

318,

194

Dist

rict o

f Col

umbi

a36

,163

5.9%

Penn

sylv

ania

2,03

7,27

316

.0%

New

Mex

ico1,

280,

430

61.5

%Lo

uisia

na57

2,44

012

.5%

Miss

issip

pi36

.143

Rho

de Is

land

1,05

1,30

2Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia72

3,88

65.

7%M

assa

chus

etts

1,03

9,36

415

.8%

Kans

as1,

764,

655

61.5

%Vi

rgin

ia1,

011,

063

12.5

%Ka

nsas

36.0

44M

onta

na99

8,19

9Fl

orid

a1,

074,

842

5.6%

Haw

aii

216,

099

15.7

%N

ebra

ska

1,13

2,19

461

.4%

Nev

ada

339,

478

12.5

%Lo

uisia

na35

.945

Del

awar

e90

7,13

5W

est V

irgin

ia10

3,45

65.

6%R

hode

Isla

nd16

3,49

215

.6%

Flor

ida

11,7

02,9

1661

.4%

Cal

iforn

ia4,

398,

624

11.7

%G

eorg

ia35

.546

Sout

h D

akot

a82

4,08

2M

assa

chus

etts

365,

651

5.6%

Nor

th D

akot

a10

6,10

715

.5%

Iow

a1,

880,

201

61.4

%D

istric

t of C

olum

bia

70,1

7911

.4%

Cal

iforn

ia35

.447

Alas

ka72

2,71

8C

onne

cticu

t19

7,09

65.

5%Fl

orid

a2,

919,

589

15.3

%Ar

kans

as1,

798,

406

61.2

%C

olor

ado

575,

820

11.3

%Id

aho

34.9

48N

orth

Dak

ota

683,

932

Rho

de Is

land

56,0

445.

3%M

aine

201,

525

15.2

%So

uth

Dak

ota

502,

273

60.9

%G

eorg

ia1,

077,

512

11.0

%Al

aska

33.8

49Ve

rmon

t62

6,43

1N

ew H

amps

hire

67,6

505.

1%W

est V

irgin

ia28

1,33

815

.2%

Arizo

na3,

935,

556

60.7

%Te

xas

2,70

6,02

910

.5%

Dist

rict o

f Col

umbi

a33

.750

Dist

rict o

f Col

umbi

a61

7,99

6M

aine

67,6

935.

1%Ve

rmon

t94

,847

15.1

%Id

aho

954,

436

60.2

%U

tah

259,

221

9.2%

Texa

s33

.751

Wyo

min

g56

8,15

8Ve

rmon

t31

,171

5.0%

Dist

rict o

f Col

umbi

a69

,171

11.2

%U

tah

1,67

7,69

259

.6%

Alas

ka58

,213

8.1%

Uta

h29

.5

N

ote:

Tot

als

may

diffe

r in

this

tabl

e fro

m o

ther

tabl

es in

this

repo

rt du

e to

diffe

rent

rele

ase

date

s or

dat

a so

urce

s.

Ages

65+

All A

ges

Und

er A

ge 5

Ages

5 to

17

Ages

18

to 6

4


Table 7 Dependency Ratios for States: July 1, 2011

Preschool-Age School-Age Retirement-Age Total Non-Working(under age 5) per 100 of (5-17) per 100 of (65 & over) per 100 of Age per 100 of

Rank State Working Age State Working Age State Working Age State Working Age

United States 10.3 United States 27.4 United States 21.1 United States 58.8

1 Utah 15.6 Utah 36.8 Florida 28.7 Utah 67.92 Idaho 12.5 Idaho 32.4 West Virginia 25.7 Idaho 66.13 Texas 12.2 Texas 31.2 Maine 25.7 Arizona 64.74 South Dakota 11.9 Arizona 29.9 Pennsylvania 24.8 South Dakota 64.15 Nebraska 11.6 Kansas 29.5 Iowa 24.3 Arkansas 63.46 Kansas 11.5 Mississippi 29.4 Montana 24.3 Iowa 62.97 Alaska 11.5 New Mexico 29.2 Arkansas 23.9 Florida 62.88 Arizona 11.4 Nebraska 29.0 South Dakota 23.6 Nebraska 62.79 Oklahoma 11.4 Georgia 28.9 Delaware 23.5 Kansas 62.7

10 New Mexico 11.4 Indiana 28.8 Arizona 23.4 New Mexico 62.611 Mississippi 11.4 Oklahoma 28.6 Hawaii 23.3 Oklahoma 62.212 Louisiana 11.0 Arkansas 28.6 Vermont 23.2 Mississippi 61.913 Wyoming 11.0 South Dakota 28.6 Ohio 22.9 Missouri 60.514 Georgia 10.9 Alaska 28.1 Missouri 22.8 Indiana 60.515 Arkansas 10.9 California 28.0 Connecticut 22.8 Texas 60.416 Nevada 10.8 Iowa 27.9 Rhode Island 22.7 Ohio 60.317 Iowa 10.6 Illinois 27.9 North Dakota 22.7 Alabama 59.918 Indiana 10.6 Louisiana 27.8 Oregon 22.5 Montana 59.919 California 10.6 Nevada 27.8 Michigan 22.4 Michigan 59.520 Minnesota 10.5 Michigan 27.6 South Carolina 22.4 Delaware 59.421 North Dakota 10.4 Ohio 27.5 Alabama 22.4 Pennsylvania 59.322 North Carolina 10.3 Minnesota 27.5 Oklahoma 22.1 South Carolina 59.223 Colorado 10.3 Missouri 27.5 Nebraska 22.1 Wisconsin 59.024 South Carolina 10.3 Alabama 27.4 Wisconsin 22.1 Tennessee 58.825 Missouri 10.3 North Carolina 27.2 New Mexico 22.1 Minnesota 58.826 Hawaii 10.2 New Jersey 27.1 Tennessee 21.8 West Virginia 58.627 Kentucky 10.2 Wisconsin 27.0 New Jersey 21.7 Louisiana 58.628 Illinois 10.2 Tennessee 27.0 Kansas 21.7 North Carolina 58.629 Washington 10.1 Kentucky 26.8 Massachusetts 21.6 Kentucky 58.530 Alabama 10.1 Colorado 26.8 New Hampshire 21.6 Hawaii 58.431 Tennessee 10.0 Connecticut 26.8 Kentucky 21.5 New Jersey 58.432 Montana 9.9 South Carolina 26.5 New York 21.3 Nevada 58.333 Wisconsin 9.9 Wyoming 26.4 Idaho 21.2 Connecticut 58.334 Ohio 9.9 Delaware 26.2 Indiana 21.1 Illinois 58.335 Delaware 9.8 Maryland 26.1 Mississippi 21.1 Oregon 57.736 Maryland 9.8 Washington 26.0 North Carolina 21.0 Maine 57.637 Virginia 9.8 Montana 25.7 Minnesota 20.9 North Dakota 57.538 Oregon 9.6 Virginia 25.7 Illinois 20.2 Wyoming 57.439 New Jersey 9.6 Oregon 25.5 Wyoming 20.0 Georgia 57.140 Michigan 9.4 Pennsylvania 25.5 Louisiana 19.8 California 56.941 New York 9.3 New York 25.0 Nevada 19.7 Washington 55.842 Florida 9.2 Florida 24.9 Washington 19.7 New York 55.543 Pennsylvania 9.0 Hawaii 24.9 Maryland 19.4 Maryland 55.344 West Virginia 8.8 New Hampshire 24.9 Virginia 19.3 Rhode Island 55.145 Connecticut 8.7 North Dakota 24.4 California 18.3 Virginia 54.846 Massachusetts 8.6 Massachusetts 24.4 Colorado 17.4 Massachusetts 54.647 Rhode Island 8.3 Rhode Island 24.1 Georgia 17.2 Colorado 54.548 District of Columbia 8.2 West Virginia 24.1 Texas 16.9 New Hampshire 54.449 Maine 8.0 Maine 23.9 District of Columbia 15.9 Vermont 54.250 New Hampshire 7.9 Vermont 23.3 Utah 15.5 Alaska 51.851 Vermont 7.7 District of Columbia 15.6 Alaska 12.2 District of Columbia 39.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, rate calculated by the Governor's Office of Management and Budget.


Table 8 Total Fertility Rates for Utah and the United States

Year Utah U.S. Year Utah U.S. Year Utah U.S.

1960 4.30 3.61 1977 3.30 1.79 1994 2.44 2.001961 4.24 3.56 1978 3.25 1.76 1995 2.45 1.981962 4.18 3.42 1979 3.28 1.81 1996 2.53 1.981963 3.87 3.30 1980 3.14 1.85 1997 2.52 1.971964 3.55 3.17 1981 3.06 1.82 1998 2.59 2.001965 3.24 2.88 1982 2.99 1.83 1999 2.61 2.011966 3.17 2.67 1983 2.83 1.80 2000 2.63 2.061967 3.12 2.53 1984 2.74 1.81 2001 2.56 2.031968 3.04 2.43 1985 2.69 1.84 2002 2.54 2.011969 3.09 2.42 1986 2.59 1.84 2003 2.57 2.041970 3.30 2.43 1987 2.48 1.87 2004 2.54 2.051971 3.14 2.25 1988 2.52 1.93 2005 2.47 2.061972 2.88 2.00 1989 2.55 2.01 2006 2.63 2.101973 2.84 1.86 1990 2.65 2.08 2007 2.63 2.121974 2.91 1.84 1991 2.53 2.06 2008 2.60 2.081975 2.96 1.77 1992 2.53 2.05 2009 2.47 2.011976 3.19 1.74 1993 2.45 2.02 2010 2.45 1.93

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services


Table 9 Housing Units, Households, and Persons Per Household by State

2010 to 20112010 2011 Percent Change

Persons Persons per Persons Persons per TotalTotal Total per Household Total Total per Household Housing Total

State Housing Units Households Household Rank Housing Units Households Household Rank Units Households

United States 131,704,730 116,716,292 2.58 - 132,312,404 114,991,725 2.64 - 0.5% -1.5%

Alabama 2,171,853 1,883,791 2.48 27 2,182,088 1,844,546 2.54 26 0.1% -0.3%Alaska 306,967 258,058 2.65 7 311,201 257,330 2.71 8 0.2% 0.0%Arizona 2,844,526 2,380,990 2.63 9 2,864,335 2,356,055 2.69 9 0.1% -0.2%Arkansas 1,316,299 1,147,084 2.47 33 1,324,369 1,127,621 2.54 26 0.1% -0.2%California 13,680,081 12,577,498 2.90 2 13,720,462 12,468,743 2.96 3 0.0% -0.1%Colorado 2,212,898 1,972,868 2.49 22 2,224,603 1,975,388 2.53 30 0.1% 0.0%Connecticut 1,487,891 1,371,087 2.52 19 1,494,019 1,351,643 2.56 22 0.1% -0.2%Delaware 405,885 342,297 2.55 15 409,757 333,192 2.65 14 0.1% -0.4%District of Columbia 296,719 266,707 2.11 51 298,902 268,670 2.15 51 0.1% 0.1%Florida 8,989,580 7,420,802 2.48 27 9,026,965 7,106,283 2.62 18 0.1% -0.6%Georgia 4,088,801 3,585,584 2.63 9 4,102,992 3,494,542 2.74 5 0.0% -0.4%Hawaii 519,508 455,338 2.89 3 522,305 448,563 2.97 2 0.1% -0.2%Idaho 667,796 579,408 2.66 6 674,394 580,193 2.68 10 0.1% 0.0%Illinois 5,296,715 4,836,972 2.59 12 5,297,318 4,737,208 2.65 14 0.0% -0.3%Indiana 2,795,541 2,502,154 2.52 19 2,800,614 2,467,111 2.57 20 0.0% -0.2%Iowa 1,336,417 1,221,576 2.41 45 1,340,529 1,216,765 2.44 44 0.0% -0.1%Kansas 1,233,215 1,112,096 2.49 22 1,237,651 1,101,701 2.53 30 0.1% -0.1%Kentucky 1,927,164 1,719,965 2.45 37 1,932,599 1,672,134 2.54 26 0.0% -0.4%Louisiana 1,964,981 1,728,360 2.55 15 1,978,848 1,702,030 2.61 19 0.1% -0.2%Maine 721,830 557,219 2.32 49 725,577 552,051 2.34 48 0.1% -0.1%Maryland 2,378,814 2,156,411 2.61 11 2,391,350 2,134,517 2.67 11 0.1% -0.1%Massachusetts 2,808,254 2,547,075 2.48 27 2,818,940 2,532,067 2.51 33 0.1% -0.1%Michigan 4,532,233 3,872,508 2.49 22 4,525,480 3,772,433 2.56 22 0.0% -0.4%Minnesota 2,347,201 2,087,227 2.48 27 2,354,034 2,096,477 2.48 38 0.0% 0.1%Mississippi 1,274,719 1,115,768 2.58 13 1,281,711 1,080,991 2.67 11 0.1% -0.5%Missouri 2,712,729 2,375,611 2.45 37 2,723,415 2,341,074 2.49 35 0.1% -0.2%Montana 482,825 409,607 2.35 47 489,157 404,250 2.40 47 0.2% -0.2%Nebraska 796,793 721,130 2.46 35 801,185 723,800 2.48 38 0.1% 0.1%Nevada 1,173,814 1,006,250 2.65 7 1,183,873 982,352 2.74 5 0.1% -0.3%New Hampshire 614,754 518,973 2.46 35 617,704 516,454 2.47 41 0.1% -0.1%New Jersey 3,553,562 3,214,360 2.68 5 3,562,553 3,167,629 2.73 7 0.0% -0.2%New Mexico 901,388 791,395 2.55 15 908,132 767,285 2.66 13 0.1% -0.4%New York 8,108,103 7,317,755 2.57 14 8,119,364 7,187,938 2.63 16 0.0% -0.3%North Carolina 4,327,528 3,745,155 2.48 27 4,362,740 3,683,364 2.55 24 0.1% -0.2%North Dakota 317,498 281,192 2.30 50 320,909 283,440 2.32 50 0.2% 0.1%Ohio 5,127,508 4,603,435 2.44 40 5,133,446 4,538,555 2.48 38 0.0% -0.2%Oklahoma 1,664,378 1,460,450 2.49 22 1,674,685 1,442,731 2.55 24 0.1% -0.2%Oregon 1,675,562 1,518,938 2.47 33 1,684,193 1,516,979 2.50 34 0.1% 0.0%Pennsylvania 5,567,315 5,018,904 2.45 37 5,579,275 4,937,333 2.49 35 0.0% -0.2%Rhode Island 463,388 413,600 2.44 40 464,728 412,259 2.45 43 0.0% 0.0%South Carolina 2,137,683 1,801,181 2.49 22 2,157,033 1,768,834 2.57 20 0.1% -0.3%South Dakota 363,438 322,282 2.42 43 366,540 323,215 2.44 44 0.1% 0.0%Tennessee 2,812,133 2,493,552 2.48 27 2,829,025 2,467,428 2.53 30 0.1% -0.2%Texas 9,977,436 8,922,933 2.75 4 10,098,750 8,850,370 2.84 4 0.2% -0.1%Utah 979,709 877,692 3.10 1 993,060 884,253 3.13 1 0.2% 0.1%Vermont 322,539 256,442 2.34 48 324,389 257,358 2.34 48 0.1% 0.1%Virginia 3,364,939 3,056,058 2.54 18 3,387,654 2,990,650 2.63 16 0.1% -0.3%Washington 2,885,677 2,620,076 2.51 21 2,907,490 2,632,621 2.54 26 0.1% 0.1%West Virginia 881,917 763,831 2.36 46 881,752 735,408 2.46 42 0.0% -0.5%Wisconsin 2,624,358 2,279,768 2.43 42 2,634,781 2,275,352 2.44 44 0.1% 0.0%Wyoming 261,868 226,879 2.42 43 265,528 222,539 2.49 35 0.2% -0.3%

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Sources: 1. 2010: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census2. 2011: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey


Table 10 Total County Population by Race in Utah: 2011

Total Population by Race

Single Race

Geographic AreaTotal

Population Total White

Black/ African

American

American Indian and

Alaska Native Asian

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander

Total Two or More Races

Hispanic Origin (of any race)

White Non-Hispanic

State 2,817,222 2,754,838 2,589,018 35,678 42,162 61,207 26,773 62,384 372,912 2,255,459

Percent of Population 100.0% 97.8% 91.9% 1.3% 1.5% 2.2% 1.0% 2.2% 13.2% 80.1%

Beaver 6,594 6,502 6,275 27 106 72 22 92 724 5,648Box Elder 50,290 49,429 48,029 234 558 493 115 861 4,254 44,266Cache 114,699 112,635 107,524 959 1,066 2,515 571 2,064 11,488 97,463Carbon 21,318 20,934 20,309 121 309 157 38 384 2,639 17,899Daggett 1,156 1,146 1,122 4 14 5 1 10 41 1,088Davis 311,811 304,796 290,620 4,186 2,076 5,886 2,028 7,015 26,799 266,891Duchesne 18,888 18,445 17,328 76 905 75 61 443 1,208 16,356Emery 10,944 10,855 10,652 36 113 41 13 89 682 10,027Garfield 5,144 5,087 4,894 33 97 54 9 57 251 4,687Grand 9,325 9,148 8,591 54 413 85 5 177 873 7,826Iron 46,740 45,798 43,634 328 1,124 530 182 942 3,779 40,358Juab 10,335 10,188 9,994 42 99 32 21 147 413 9,648Kane 7,257 7,175 7,005 28 107 31 4 82 276 6,745Millard 12,645 12,489 12,099 51 223 99 17 156 1,642 10,676Morgan 9,685 9,594 9,483 30 23 44 14 91 248 9,263Piute 1,497 1,480 1,444 5 22 6 3 17 116 1,346Rich 2,303 2,281 2,257 1 15 7 1 22 106 2,158Salt Lake 1,048,985 1,023,765 937,669 19,316 13,441 36,530 16,809 25,220 182,989 773,565San Juan 14,825 14,499 7,064 72 7,265 81 17 326 791 6,555Sanpete 27,988 27,537 26,489 281 431 187 149 451 2,629 24,236Sevier 20,971 20,695 20,234 53 286 84 38 276 956 19,396Summit 37,594 37,074 36,019 276 192 534 53 520 4,449 31,895Tooele 59,326 58,123 56,167 501 737 454 264 1,203 6,958 49,803Uintah 33,163 32,485 29,396 172 2,628 185 104 678 2,480 27,329Utah 530,499 518,014 497,364 3,790 4,321 8,307 4,232 12,485 58,470 444,131Wasatch 24,417 24,100 23,514 128 194 221 43 317 3,307 20,505Washington 141,666 138,976 133,057 1,167 2,421 1,133 1,198 2,690 14,178 120,826Wayne 2,737 2,692 2,633 7 28 20 4 45 120 2,536Weber 234,420 228,896 218,152 3,700 2,948 3,339 757 5,524 40,046 182,337

Note: As a result of the revised standards for collecting data on race and ethnicity issued by the Office of Management and Budget in 1997, the federalgovernment treats Hispanic origin and race as separate and distinct concepts. Thus Hispanics may be of any race. Also, respondents were allowed to select more than one race. Respondents who selected more than one race are included in the “Two or More Races” category. For postcensal populationestimates, the "Some Other Race" category was omitted.



Table 11 Total Population by City

EstimatesCensus Base July 1, 2010 July 1, 2011 Percent Number Percent Number

Utah 2,763,885 2,763,885 2,775,479 2,817,222 1.9% 53,337 1.5% 41,743

Beaver County 6,629 6,629 6,650 6,594 -0.5% -35 -0.8% -56Beaver city 3,112 3,112 3,122 3,096 -0.5% -16 -0.8% -26Milford city 1,409 1,409 1,414 1,401 -0.6% -8 -0.9% -13Minersville town 907 907 909 902 -0.6% -5 -0.8% -7Balance of Beaver County 1,201 1,201 1,205 1,195 -0.5% -6 -0.8% -10

Box Elder County 49,975 49,975 50,175 50,290 0.6% 315 0.2% 115Bear River City city 853 853 858 859 0.7% 6 0.1% 1Brigham City city 17,899 17,901 17,972 18,012 0.6% 113 0.2% 40Corinne city 685 685 686 688 0.4% 3 0.3% 2Deweyville town 332 332 333 333 0.3% 1 0.0% 0Elwood town 1,034 1,034 1,039 1,040 0.6% 6 0.1% 1Fielding town 455 455 456 459 0.9% 4 0.7% 3Garland city 2,400 2,400 2,411 2,416 0.7% 16 0.2% 5Honeyville city 1,441 1,441 1,447 1,451 0.7% 10 0.3% 4Howell town 245 245 245 247 0.8% 2 0.8% 2Mantua town 687 687 691 693 0.9% 6 0.3% 2Perry city 4,512 4,512 4,531 4,539 0.6% 27 0.2% 8Plymouth town 414 414 415 416 0.5% 2 0.2% 1Portage town 245 245 246 247 0.8% 2 0.4% 1Snowville town 167 167 167 169 1.2% 2 1.2% 2Tremonton city 7,647 7,647 7,677 7,695 0.6% 48 0.2% 18Willard city 1,772 1,772 1,778 1,782 0.6% 10 0.2% 4Balance of Box Elder County 9,187 9,185 9,223 9,244 0.6% 57 0.2% 21

Cache County 112,656 112,656 113,324 114,699 1.8% 2,043 1.2% 1,375Amalga town 488 488 490 497 1.8% 9 1.4% 7Clarkston town 666 666 671 678 1.8% 12 1.0% 7Cornish town 288 288 289 293 1.7% 5 1.4% 4Hyde Park city 3,833 3,833 3,856 3,904 1.9% 71 1.2% 48Hyrum city 7,609 7,609 7,656 7,751 1.9% 142 1.2% 95Lewiston city 1,766 1,766 1,778 1,798 1.8% 32 1.1% 20Logan city 48,174 48,174 48,448 49,010 1.7% 836 1.2% 562Mendon city 1,282 1,282 1,290 1,306 1.9% 24 1.2% 16Millville city 1,829 1,829 1,839 1,863 1.9% 34 1.3% 24Newton town 789 789 795 803 1.8% 14 1.0% 8Nibley city 5,438 5,438 5,471 5,540 1.9% 102 1.3% 69North Logan city 8,269 8,269 8,319 8,425 1.9% 156 1.3% 106Paradise town 904 904 910 922 2.0% 18 1.3% 12Providence city 7,075 7,075 7,118 7,207 1.9% 132 1.3% 89Richmond city 2,470 2,470 2,485 2,517 1.9% 47 1.3% 32River Heights city 1,734 1,734 1,746 1,767 1.9% 33 1.2% 21Smithfield city 9,495 9,495 9,553 9,674 1.9% 179 1.3% 121Trenton town 464 464 465 472 1.7% 8 1.5% 7Wellsville city 3,432 3,432 3,453 3,498 1.9% 66 1.3% 45Balance of Cache County 6,651 6,651 6,692 6,774 1.8% 123 1.2% 82

Carbon County 21,403 21,403 21,443 21,318 -0.4% -85 -0.6% -125East Carbon city 1,301 1,301 1,304 1,295 -0.5% -6 -0.7% -9Helper city 2,201 2,198 2,202 2,189 -0.5% -12 -0.6% -13Price city 8,715 8,715 8,730 8,682 -0.4% -33 -0.5% -48Scofield town 24 24 24 24 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Sunnyside city 377 377 377 375 -0.5% -2 -0.5% -2Wellington city 1,676 1,676 1,680 1,670 -0.4% -6 -0.6% -10Balance of Carbon County 7,109 7,112 7,126 7,083 -0.4% -26 -0.6% -43

April 1, 2010 Change from Change from Population Estimate 2010 Census 2010 Estimate


Table 11 (Continued) Total Population by City


Daggett County 1,059 1,059 1,066 1,156 9.2% 97 8.4% 90Manila town 310 310 312 340 9.7% 30 9.0% 28Balance of Daggett County 749 749 754 816 8.9% 67 8.2% 62

Davis County 306,479 306,479 307,806 311,811 1.7% 5,332 1.3% 4,005Bountiful city 42,552 42,561 42,747 43,303 1.8% 751 1.3% 556Centerville city 15,335 15,326 15,392 15,596 1.7% 261 1.3% 204Clearfield city 30,112 30,112 30,238 30,618 1.7% 506 1.3% 380Clinton city 20,426 20,426 20,515 20,783 1.7% 357 1.3% 268Farmington city 18,275 18,275 18,352 18,585 1.7% 310 1.3% 233Fruit Heights city 4,987 4,987 5,009 5,076 1.8% 89 1.3% 67Kaysville city 27,300 27,300 27,419 27,778 1.8% 478 1.3% 359Layton city 67,311 67,311 67,604 68,495 1.8% 1,184 1.3% 891North Salt Lake city 16,322 16,322 16,394 16,607 1.7% 285 1.3% 213South Weber city 6,051 6,051 6,079 6,159 1.8% 108 1.3% 80Sunset city 5,122 5,122 5,145 5,213 1.8% 91 1.3% 68Syracuse city 24,331 24,331 24,437 24,756 1.7% 425 1.3% 319West Bountiful city 5,265 5,265 5,287 5,357 1.7% 92 1.3% 70West Point city 9,511 9,511 9,552 9,679 1.8% 168 1.3% 127Woods Cross city 9,761 9,761 9,804 9,932 1.8% 171 1.3% 128Balance of Davis County 3,818 3,818 3,832 3,874 1.5% 56 1.1% 42

Duchesne County 18,607 18,607 18,640 18,888 1.5% 281 1.3% 248Altamont town 225 228 230 231 2.7% 6 0.4% 1Duchesne city 1,690 1,690 1,693 1,715 1.5% 25 1.3% 22Myton city 569 569 569 578 1.6% 9 1.6% 9Roosevelt city 6,046 6,016 6,027 6,106 1.0% 60 1.3% 79Tabiona town 171 171 170 173 1.2% 2 1.8% 3Balance of Duchesne County 9,906 9,933 9,951 10,085 1.8% 179 1.3% 134

Emery County 10,976 10,976 10,990 10,944 -0.3% -32 -0.4% -46Castle Dale city 1,630 1,630 1,633 1,625 -0.3% -5 -0.5% -8Clawson town 163 163 163 164 0.6% 1 0.6% 1Cleveland town 464 464 464 462 -0.4% -2 -0.4% -2Elmo town 418 418 418 417 -0.2% -1 -0.2% -1Emery town 288 288 288 287 -0.3% -1 -0.3% -1Ferron city 1,626 1,633 1,636 1,629 0.2% 3 -0.4% -7Green River city 952 952 952 949 -0.3% -3 -0.3% -3Huntington city 2,129 2,129 2,132 2,122 -0.3% -7 -0.5% -10Orangeville city 1,470 1,470 1,473 1,465 -0.3% -5 -0.5% -8Balance of Emery County 1,836 1,829 1,831 1,824 -0.7% -12 -0.4% -7

Garfield County 5,172 5,172 5,186 5,144 -0.5% -28 -0.8% -42Antimony town 122 122 122 121 -0.8% -1 -0.8% -1Boulder town 226 226 227 225 -0.4% -1 -0.9% -2Bryce Canyon City town 198 198 200 197 -0.5% -1 -1.5% -3Cannonville town 167 167 167 165 -1.2% -2 -1.2% -2Escalante city 797 797 800 792 -0.6% -5 -1.0% -8Hatch town 133 133 133 133 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Henrieville town 230 230 230 230 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Panguitch city 1,520 1,520 1,523 1,512 -0.5% -8 -0.7% -11Tropic town 530 530 532 527 -0.6% -3 -0.9% -5Balance of Garfield County 1,249 1,249 1,252 1,242 -0.6% -7 -0.8% -10

Grand County 9,225 9,225 9,303 9,325 1.1% 100 0.2% 22Castle Valley town 319 319 321 323 1.3% 4 0.6% 2Moab city 5,046 5,046 5,089 5,101 1.1% 55 0.2% 12Balance of Grand County 3,860 3,860 3,893 3,901 1.1% 41 0.2% 8





Iron County 46,163 46,163 46,291 46,740 1.2% 577 1.0% 449Brian Head town 83 83 83 84 1.2% 1 1.2% 1Cedar City city 28,857 28,857 28,936 29,213 1.2% 356 1.0% 277Enoch city 5,803 5,803 5,820 5,879 1.3% 76 1.0% 59Kanarraville town 355 355 355 359 1.1% 4 1.1% 4Paragonah town 488 488 490 494 1.2% 6 0.8% 4Parowan city 2,790 2,792 2,800 2,826 1.3% 36 0.9% 26Balance of Iron County 7,787 7,785 7,807 7,885 1.3% 98 1.0% 78

Juab County 10,246 10,246 10,268 10,335 0.9% 89 0.7% 67Eureka city 669 669 670 674 0.7% 5 0.6% 4Levan town 841 841 843 848 0.8% 7 0.6% 5Mona city 1,547 1,547 1,550 1,563 1.0% 16 0.8% 13Nephi city 5,389 5,389 5,402 5,436 0.9% 47 0.6% 34Rocky Ridge town 733 733 734 739 0.8% 6 0.7% 5Santaquin city (pt.) 0 0 0 0 - - - -Balance of Juab County 1,067 1,067 1,069 1,075 0.7% 8 0.6% 6

Kane County 7,125 7,125 7,153 7,257 1.9% 132 1.5% 104Alton town 119 119 119 122 2.5% 3 2.5% 3Big Water town 475 475 477 484 1.9% 9 1.5% 7Glendale town 381 381 383 388 1.8% 7 1.3% 5Kanab city 4,312 4,312 4,328 4,391 1.8% 79 1.5% 63Orderville town 577 577 580 587 1.7% 10 1.2% 7Balance of Kane County 1,261 1,261 1,266 1,285 1.9% 24 1.5% 19

Millard County 12,503 12,503 12,540 12,645 1.1% 142 0.8% 105Delta city 3,436 3,436 3,448 3,475 1.1% 39 0.8% 27Fillmore city 2,435 2,435 2,442 2,462 1.1% 27 0.8% 20Hinckley town 696 696 697 703 1.0% 7 0.9% 6Holden town 378 378 379 383 1.3% 5 1.1% 4Kanosh town 474 474 475 479 1.1% 5 0.8% 4Leamington town 226 226 226 228 0.9% 2 0.9% 2Lynndyl town 106 106 106 107 0.9% 1 0.9% 1Meadow town 310 310 311 314 1.3% 4 1.0% 3Oak City town 578 578 579 585 1.2% 7 1.0% 6Scipio town 327 327 328 331 1.2% 4 0.9% 3Balance of Millard County 3,537 3,537 3,549 3,578 1.2% 41 0.8% 29

Morgan County 9,469 9,469 9,524 9,685 2.3% 216 1.7% 161Morgan city 3,687 3,683 3,705 3,766 2.1% 79 1.6% 61Balance of Morgan County 5,782 5,786 5,819 5,919 2.4% 137 1.7% 100

Piute County 1,556 1,556 1,562 1,497 -3.8% -59 -4.2% -65Circleville town 547 547 550 525 -4.0% -22 -4.5% -25Junction town 191 191 191 184 -3.7% -7 -3.7% -7Kingston town 173 173 173 166 -4.0% -7 -4.0% -7Marysvale town 408 408 410 393 -3.7% -15 -4.1% -17Balance of Piute County 237 237 238 229 -3.4% -8 -3.8% -9

Rich County 2,264 2,264 2,262 2,303 1.7% 39 1.8% 41Garden City town 562 559 558 569 1.2% 7 2.0% 11Laketown town 248 250 250 254 2.4% 6 1.6% 4Randolph town 464 466 466 474 2.2% 10 1.7% 8Woodruff town 180 180 180 183 1.7% 3 1.7% 3Balance of Rich County 810 809 808 823 1.6% 13 1.9% 15





Salt Lake County 1,029,655 1,029,655 1,033,223 1,048,985 1.9% 19,330 1.5% 15,762Alta town 383 383 384 388 1.3% 5 1.0% 4Bluffdale city 7,598 7,598 7,623 7,743 1.9% 145 1.6% 120Cottonwood Heights city 33,433 33,433 33,549 34,068 1.9% 635 1.5% 519Draper city (pt.) 40,532 40,532 40,660 41,230 1.7% 698 1.4% 570Herriman city 21,785 21,785 21,863 22,201 1.9% 416 1.5% 338Holladay city 26,472 26,472 26,563 26,971 1.9% 499 1.5% 408Midvale city 27,964 27,904 28,003 28,434 1.7% 470 1.5% 431Murray city 46,746 46,746 46,910 47,632 1.9% 886 1.5% 722Riverton city 38,753 38,753 38,888 39,489 1.9% 736 1.5% 601Salt Lake City city 186,440 186,443 187,082 189,899 1.9% 3,459 1.5% 2,817Sandy city 87,461 87,540 87,846 89,200 2.0% 1,739 1.5% 1,354South Jordan city 50,418 50,418 50,595 51,377 1.9% 959 1.5% 782South Salt Lake city 23,617 23,617 23,691 24,016 1.7% 399 1.4% 325Taylorsville city 58,652 58,652 58,858 59,767 1.9% 1,115 1.5% 909West Jordan city 103,712 103,712 104,075 105,675 1.9% 1,963 1.5% 1,600West Valley City city 129,480 129,480 129,935 131,942 1.9% 2,462 1.5% 2,007Balance of Salt Lake County 146,209 146,187 146,698 148,953 1.9% 2,744 1.5% 2,255

San Juan County 14,746 14,746 14,826 14,825 0.5% 79 0.0% -1Blanding city 3,375 3,375 3,391 3,394 0.6% 19 0.1% 3Monticello city 1,972 1,972 1,983 1,981 0.5% 9 -0.1% -2Balance of San Juan County 9,399 9,399 9,452 9,450 0.5% 51 0.0% -2

Sanpete County 27,822 27,822 27,891 27,988 0.6% 166 0.3% 97Centerfield town 1,367 1,367 1,370 1,376 0.7% 9 0.4% 6Ephraim city 6,135 6,135 6,151 6,174 0.6% 39 0.4% 23Fairview city 1,247 1,247 1,249 1,256 0.7% 9 0.6% 7Fayette town 242 242 242 243 0.4% 1 0.4% 1Fountain Green city 1,071 1,071 1,074 1,077 0.6% 6 0.3% 3Gunnison city 3,285 3,285 3,289 3,297 0.4% 12 0.2% 8Manti city 3,276 3,276 3,286 3,297 0.6% 21 0.3% 11Mayfield town 496 496 497 498 0.4% 2 0.2% 1Moroni city 1,423 1,423 1,426 1,432 0.6% 9 0.4% 6Mount Pleasant city 3,260 3,260 3,269 3,279 0.6% 19 0.3% 10Spring City city 988 988 991 995 0.7% 7 0.4% 4Sterling town 262 262 264 263 0.4% 1 -0.4% -1Wales town 302 302 304 305 1.0% 3 0.3% 1Balance of Sanpete County 4,468 4,468 4,479 4,496 0.6% 28 0.4% 17

Sevier County 20,802 20,802 20,833 20,971 0.8% 169 0.7% 138Annabella town 795 795 797 802 0.9% 7 0.6% 5Aurora city 1,016 1,016 1,018 1,024 0.8% 8 0.6% 6Central Valley town 528 528 528 532 0.8% 4 0.8% 4Elsinore town 847 847 849 855 0.9% 8 0.7% 6Glenwood town 464 464 466 467 0.6% 3 0.2% 1Joseph town 344 344 344 346 0.6% 2 0.6% 2Koosharem town 327 327 327 329 0.6% 2 0.6% 2Monroe city 2,256 2,256 2,259 2,275 0.8% 19 0.7% 16Redmond town 730 730 732 736 0.8% 6 0.5% 4Richfield city 7,551 7,551 7,561 7,611 0.8% 60 0.7% 50Salina city 2,489 2,489 2,492 2,509 0.8% 20 0.7% 17Sigurd town 429 431 431 435 1.4% 6 0.9% 4Balance of Sevier County 3,026 3,024 3,029 3,050 0.8% 24 0.7% 21

Summit County 36,324 36,324 36,533 37,594 3.5% 1,270 2.9% 1,061Coalville city 1,363 1,363 1,370 1,410 3.4% 47 2.9% 40Francis town 1,077 1,077 1,082 1,114 3.4% 37 3.0% 32





Henefer town 766 766 771 794 3.7% 28 3.0% 23Kamas city 1,811 1,811 1,821 1,874 3.5% 63 2.9% 53Oakley city 1,470 1,470 1,479 1,522 3.5% 52 2.9% 43Park City city (pt.) 7,547 7,547 7,591 7,810 3.5% 263 2.9% 219Balance of Summit County 22,290 22,290 22,419 23,070 3.5% 780 2.9% 651

Tooele County 58,218 58,218 58,513 59,326 1.9% 1,108 1.4% 813Grantsville city 8,893 8,893 8,939 9,063 1.9% 170 1.4% 124Ophir town 38 38 38 38 0.0% 0 0.0% 0Rush Valley town 447 447 451 455 1.8% 8 0.9% 4Stockton town 616 616 620 628 1.9% 12 1.3% 8Tooele city 31,605 31,605 31,764 32,206 1.9% 601 1.4% 442Vernon town 243 243 244 248 2.1% 5 1.6% 4Wendover city 1,400 1,400 1,406 1,427 1.9% 27 1.5% 21Balance of Tooele County 14,976 14,976 15,051 15,261 1.9% 285 1.4% 210

Uintah County 32,588 32,588 32,435 33,163 1.8% 575 2.2% 728Ballard town 801 801 798 814 1.6% 13 2.0% 16Naples city 1,755 1,755 1,748 1,787 1.8% 32 2.2% 39Vernal city 9,089 9,089 9,046 9,248 1.7% 159 2.2% 202Balance of Uintah County 20,943 20,943 20,843 21,314 1.8% 371 2.3% 471

Utah County 516,564 516,564 519,837 530,499 2.7% 13,935 2.1% 10,662Alpine city 9,555 9,555 9,617 9,821 2.8% 266 2.1% 204American Fork city 26,263 26,263 26,434 26,982 2.7% 719 2.1% 548Cedar Fort town 368 368 372 378 2.7% 10 1.6% 6Cedar Hills city 9,796 9,796 9,860 10,066 2.8% 270 2.1% 206Draper city (pt.) 1,742 1,742 1,754 1,789 2.7% 47 2.0% 35Eagle Mountain city 21,415 21,415 21,555 22,008 2.8% 593 2.1% 453Elk Ridge city 2,436 2,436 2,452 2,503 2.8% 67 2.1% 51Fairfield town 119 119 119 123 3.4% 4 3.4% 4Genola town 1,370 1,370 1,378 1,407 2.7% 37 2.1% 29Goshen town 921 921 927 946 2.7% 25 2.0% 19Highland city 15,523 15,523 15,625 15,953 2.8% 430 2.1% 328Lehi city 47,407 47,407 47,715 48,717 2.8% 1,310 2.1% 1,002Lindon city 10,070 10,070 10,134 10,348 2.8% 278 2.1% 214Mapleton city 7,979 7,979 8,031 8,198 2.7% 219 2.1% 167Orem city 88,328 88,328 88,892 90,727 2.7% 2,399 2.1% 1,835Payson city 18,294 18,294 18,412 18,798 2.8% 504 2.1% 386Pleasant Grove city 33,509 33,509 33,728 34,435 2.8% 926 2.1% 707Provo city 112,488 112,488 113,153 115,321 2.5% 2,833 1.9% 2,168Salem city 6,423 6,423 6,465 6,603 2.8% 180 2.1% 138Santaquin city (pt.) 9,128 9,128 9,187 9,381 2.8% 253 2.1% 194Saratoga Springs city 17,781 17,804 17,919 18,299 2.9% 518 2.1% 380Spanish Fork city 34,691 34,720 34,939 35,659 2.8% 968 2.1% 720Springville city 29,466 29,466 29,658 30,281 2.8% 815 2.1% 623Vineyard town 139 139 139 144 3.6% 5 3.6% 5Woodland Hills city 1,344 1,344 1,352 1,382 2.8% 38 2.2% 30Balance of Utah County 10,009 9,957 10,020 10,230 2.2% 221 2.1% 210

Wasatch County 23,530 23,530 23,702 24,417 3.8% 887 3.0% 715Charleston town 415 415 419 431 3.9% 16 2.9% 12Daniel town 938 938 944 973 3.7% 35 3.1% 29Heber city 11,362 11,365 11,448 11,795 3.8% 433 3.0% 347Hideout town 656 656 662 681 3.8% 25 2.9% 19Independence town 164 164 165 170 3.7% 6 3.0% 5Midway city 3,845 3,845 3,873 3,991 3.8% 146 3.0% 118Park City city (pt.) 11 11 11 12 9.1% 1 9.1% 1





Wallsburg town 250 250 251 260 4.0% 10 3.6% 9Balance of Wasatch County 5,889 5,886 5,929 6,104 3.7% 215 3.0% 175

Washington County 138,115 138,115 138,516 141,666 2.6% 3,551 2.3% 3,150Apple Valley town 701 701 704 718 2.4% 17 2.0% 14Enterprise city 1,711 1,711 1,715 1,755 2.6% 44 2.3% 40Hildale city 2,726 2,736 2,747 2,805 2.9% 79 2.1% 58Hurricane city 13,748 13,748 13,786 14,094 2.5% 346 2.2% 308Ivins city 6,753 6,753 6,774 6,930 2.6% 177 2.3% 156La Verkin city 4,060 4,060 4,071 4,166 2.6% 106 2.3% 95Leeds town 820 822 825 843 2.8% 23 2.2% 18New Harmony town 207 207 207 212 2.4% 5 2.4% 5Rockville town 245 245 245 251 2.4% 6 2.4% 6St. George city 72,897 72,897 73,107 74,770 2.6% 1,873 2.3% 1,663Santa Clara city 6,003 6,003 6,020 6,159 2.6% 156 2.3% 139Springdale town 529 529 531 543 2.6% 14 2.3% 12Toquerville town 1,370 1,370 1,374 1,407 2.7% 37 2.4% 33Virgin town 596 596 599 611 2.5% 15 2.0% 12Washington city 18,761 18,761 18,816 19,249 2.6% 488 2.3% 433Balance of Washington County 6,988 6,976 6,995 7,153 2.4% 165 2.3% 158

Wayne County 2,778 2,778 2,771 2,737 -1.5% -41 -1.2% -34Bicknell town 327 327 327 322 -1.5% -5 -1.5% -5Hanksville town 219 219 218 215 -1.8% -4 -1.4% -3Loa town 572 572 571 565 -1.2% -7 -1.1% -6Lyman town 258 258 257 255 -1.2% -3 -0.8% -2Torrey town 182 182 181 179 -1.6% -3 -1.1% -2Balance of Wayne County 1,220 1,220 1,217 1,201 -1.6% -19 -1.3% -16

Weber County 231,236 231,236 232,216 234,420 1.4% 3,184 0.9% 2,204Farr West city 5,928 5,928 5,954 6,010 1.4% 82 0.9% 56Harrisville city 5,567 5,567 5,592 5,646 1.4% 79 1.0% 54Hooper city 7,218 7,218 7,248 7,317 1.4% 99 1.0% 69Huntsville town 608 608 612 618 1.6% 10 1.0% 6Marriott-Slaterville city 1,701 1,701 1,708 1,725 1.4% 24 1.0% 17North Ogden city 17,357 17,357 17,433 17,600 1.4% 243 1.0% 167Ogden city 82,825 82,825 83,170 83,949 1.4% 1,124 0.9% 779Plain City city 5,476 5,476 5,498 5,554 1.4% 78 1.0% 56Pleasant View city 7,979 7,979 8,013 8,089 1.4% 110 0.9% 76Riverdale city 8,426 8,426 8,461 8,543 1.4% 117 1.0% 82Roy city 36,884 36,884 37,041 37,395 1.4% 511 1.0% 354South Ogden city 16,532 16,532 16,602 16,760 1.4% 228 1.0% 158Uintah town 1,322 1,322 1,328 1,339 1.3% 17 0.8% 11Washington Terrace city 9,067 9,067 9,105 9,190 1.4% 123 0.9% 85West Haven city 10,272 10,272 10,317 10,415 1.4% 143 0.9% 98Balance of Weber County 14,074 14,074 14,134 14,270 1.4% 196 1.0% 136

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates


2012 Economic Report to the Governor 43 Employment UT

Economic Considerations Due to multiple years of recession, Utah’s unemployment rate remained elevated at 6.7% in 2011. This was down from the recession’s peak of 8.0% in 2010, but the decline may have been a reflection of people leaving the labor force rather than people returning to work. Utah’s labor force participation rate fell from 72% prior to the recession to 66% by late 2011. This was a significant decline; one of the highest in the nation. The most obvious factor in this decline was cyclical job losses and job stagnation of the recession, but additionally the young median age of Utah’s labor force. Younger workers are more apt to exit the labor force for short durations than are older workers. Industry Profiles Following a down year in energy prices in 2010, mining em-ployment made a strong comeback in 2011 as energy prices rebounded. This is the smallest industrial sector in Utah, and while its 1,210 new jobs in 2011 were small in quantity, it represents a growth rate of 11.7%. Nearly all of the gains were in the oil and gas sector in the Uintah Basin. Construction employment had a fourth straight year of em-ployment loss, although the losses slowed considerably with only 50 jobs lost in 2011. This probably signals the end of construction’s employment decline. Assuming no losses in 2012, the total employment decline from pre-recession to 2011 was around 38,300 jobs, or 37% of pre-recession em-ployment. Manufacturing was also heavily affected by the recession. From 2008 through 2010, the industry lost 14,800 jobs. Em-ployment in manufacturing began to rebound in 2011 adding roughly 2,600 jobs. Manufacturing comprises 9.4% of Utah’s employment base, down from around 10% a few years ago. Trade, transportation, and utilities was the largest employ-ment sector in Utah in 2011, accounting for just over 19% of all jobs. The largest component is trade—important because

it captures consumer spending. Overall, this sector rebound-ed with 4,100 new jobs for 2011. Wholesale trade activities were the most robust, adding over 2,000 jobs. More than 1,500 jobs developed in the transportation/warehousing as-pect, with much of this in the trucking industry. Retail trade added 550 of the total sector positions. Information is one of Utah’s smallest sectors with employ-ment around 29,500. This represents an increase of 220 new jobs over the previous year. Professional and business services saw the strongest job gains, adding 7,080 new jobs in 2011. This was nearly double the number of jobs added in the next highest sector, educa-tion and health services. In the early stages of economic recovery, it is natural to see significant employment gains in business services. These are largely driven by job gains in temporary services. These are the first places business turns to expand hiring, particularly when questions surrounding the durability and strength of an economic rebound linger. The other component of this sector is technical and professional jobs, which grew by 2,800 jobs in 2011. These are generally high-paying service jobs required higher education and spe-cialized training, such as engineering, computer programming, and consulting. Private education and health services is Utah’s most con-sistent job-growth sector. Even in the recessions of the last decade, this industry continued to expand. In 2011 expansion continued, adding over 4,200 new jobs to Utah’s employment base. Government is a large employer in Utah. It consists of three components—federal, state, and local. Together, they make up 18% of Utah’s employment base, the second highest among all industries. In aggregate, government employment gains in Utah totaled nearly 3,900 in 2011. Not all govern-ment branches added jobs. The federal government dropped roughly 1,200 jobs, but these were countered by gains at both the state and local levels, nearly all coming from education. A large share of state and local government employment is linked to higher education and K-12 education. Wage Growth. Total payroll wages paid by all industries into the Utah economy totaled $47.9 billion, up $2 billion from 2010, an increase of 4.5%. Utah’s average monthly payroll wage measured $3,305, up 2.2% from 2010 ($3,235). Average wages in the past several years have been below Utah’s long-term average wage growth of over 3.0%. Significant Issues The National Economy. Utah was affected by the changes of the national economy, however the state usually performs better than the national economy. Utah’s 2.3% employment growth is greater than the national average employment growth of 1.1%. From the employment trough in early 2010

Employment

The year 2011 marked the first full year of economic recov-ery in Utah from the recession’s employment trough of mid-2010. All industrial sectors, except construction, showed employment gains for the year. The construction industry lost only 50 jobs in 2011, showing that even the hardest hit industry is reaching the end of the recession decline. Utah added over 27,000 jobs to the economy during 2011, which represents an employment growth rate of 2.3%. This increase follows two years of job losses in Utah, and an addi-tional year with no job growth. The growth in 2011 marks the first in three years with any significant job gains in Utah. Employment levels remain 43,900 below the 2008 pre-recession peak of 1,252,573.


to the end of 2011, Utah’s employment gains have totaled 4.4% (seasonally adjusted), making Utah one of the top five states in the nation in employment rebound. The pace of employment growth increased nationally in 2011, although the rebound has been slow. By the end of 2011, 11 quarters have passed since the recession’s GDP growth trough. Historically, the average length of employment re-bound from a recession’s trough is four quarters. The nation-al economy after 11 quarters has gained back only one-quarter of its pre-recession employment. This slow pace of national employment rebound is having a dampening effect upon Utah’s economy. 2012 Outlook Utah’s economy is expected to continue rebounding through-out 2012 with employment gains totaling 3.4%, or 41,451 jobs. The pace of growth accelerated in the first six months of 2012 reaching 3.5%, and that rate is expected to hold for the remainder of the year. Noticeable gains in construction employment are an emerging factor in this growth, and this has been the missing piece in Utah’s economic recovery.


Figure 16 Utah Unemployment Rate

Figure 17 Year-Over Monthly Percent Change In Nonfarm Jobs

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services f = forecast

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012f

Utah United States

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%1

973

19

741

975

19

761

977

19

781

979

19

801

981

19

821

983

19

841

985

19

861

987

19

881

989

19

901

991

19

921

993

19

941

995

19

961

997

19

981

999

20

002

001

20

022

003

20

042

005

20

062

007

20

082

009

20

102

011

Utah United States


Figure 18 Utah Nonfarm Employment: Annual Percent Change

Figure 19 Percent Change in Utah Employment by Industry: 2010-2011 Annual Averages

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services f = forecast


1.8%

1.2%

2.6%

2.7%

4.6%

0.6%

0.7%

1.8%

2.4%

-0.1%

11.6%

2.3%

-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Government

Other Services


Ed. & Health Serv.

Prof. & Bus. Serv.

Financial Activity

Information


Manufacturing

Construction

Mining

Total

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%19

5019

5119

5219

5319

5419

5519

5619

5719

5819

5919

6019

6119

6219

6319

6419

6519

6619

6719

6819

6919

7019

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

12f


Figure 20 Numeric Change in Utah Employment by Industry: 2010-2011 Annual Averages

Figure 21 Growth Rates for Utah Average Annual Pay: Percent Change


Sources: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Council of Economic Advisors f = forecast

3,870

400

2,890

4,200

7,080

410

220

4,120

2,610

-50

1,210

-1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000

Government

Other Services


Ed. & Health Serv.

Prof. & Bus. Serv.

Financial Activity

Information


Manufacturing

Construction

Mining

2.6%

3.2%

2.3%

3.7%4.0%

5.3%

1.2%

2.4%

3.7%

4.1%

4.8%

4.4%

3.8%

4.8%

2.8%

1.6%1.6%

3.5%3.6%

5.4%5.5%

2.6%

1.6%1.6%

2.2%

3.3%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

f


Figure 22 Utah Payroll Wages by Major Industry Group 2011

Figure 23 Utah Employment By Establishment Size: 2011



$8,847.9

$979.5

$1,830.3

$5,682.1

$7,584.3

$3,554.9

$1,627.9

$8,527.8

$5,678.0

$2,797.8

$853.6

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000

Government

Other Services


Ed. & Health Serv.

Prof. & Bus. Serv.

Financial Activity

Information


Manufacturing

Construction

Mining

Total Payroll in Millions of Dollars

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Fewer than 5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100+

Sh

are

of

To

tal

Establishments Employment


Table 12 Utah Nonfarm Employment by Industry and Unemployment Rate

Percent Absolute Unemployment Percent Absolute Unemployment Year Number Change Change Rate Year Number Change Change Rate

1950 189,153 3.1 5,653 5.5 1982 560,981 0.3 1,797 7.81951 207,386 9.6 18,233 3.3 1983 566,991 1.1 6,010 9.21952 214,409 3.4 7,023 3.2 1984 601,068 6.0 34,077 6.51953 217,194 1.3 2,785 3.3 1985 624,387 3.9 23,319 5.91954 211,864 -2.5 -5,330 5.2 1986 634,138 1.6 9,751 6.01955 224,007 5.7 12,143 4.1 1987 640,298 1.0 6,160 6.41956 236,225 5.5 12,218 3.4 1988 660,075 3.1 19,777 4.91957 240,577 1.8 4,352 3.7 1989 691,244 4.7 31,169 4.61958 240,816 0.1 239 5.3 1990 723,629 4.7 32,385 4.31959 251,940 4.6 11,124 4.6 1991 745,202 3.0 21,573 5.01960 263,307 4.5 11,367 4.8 1992 768,602 3.2 23,488 5.01961 272,355 3.4 9,048 5.3 1993 809,731 5.4 41,129 3.91962 286,382 5.2 14,027 4.9 1994 859,626 6.2 49,895 3.71963 293,758 2.6 7,376 5.4 1995 907,886 5.6 48,260 3.61964 293,576 -0.1 -182 6.0 1996 954,183 5.1 46,297 3.51965 300,164 2.2 6,588 6.1 1997 993,999 4.2 39,816 3.11966 317,771 5.9 17,607 4.9 1998 1,023,480 3.0 29,461 3.81967 326,953 2.9 9,182 5.2 1999 1,048,498 2.4 25,018 3.71968 335,527 2.6 8,574 5.4 2000 1,074,879 2.5 26,381 3.41969 348,612 3.9 13,085 5.2 2001 1,081,685 0.6 6,806 4.41970 357,435 2.5 8,823 6.1 2002 1,073,746 -0.7 -7,939 5.71971 369,836 3.5 12,401 6.6 2003 1,074,131 0.0 385 5.71972 387,271 4.7 17,435 6.3 2004 1,104,328 2.8 30,197 5.21973 415,641 7.3 28,370 5.8 2005 1,148,320 4.0 43,992 4.31974 434,793 4.6 19,152 6.1 2006 1,203,914 4.8 55,594 2.91975 441,082 1.4 6,289 6.5 2007 1,251,282 3.9 47,368 2.71976 463,658 5.1 22,576 5.7 2008 1,252,573 0.1 1,291 3.41977 489,580 5.6 25,922 5.3 2009 1,188,736 -5.1 -63,837 7.71978 526,400 7.5 36,820 3.8 2010 1,181,619 -0.6 -7,117 8.01979 549,242 4.3 22,842 4.3 2011 1,208,649 2.3 27,030 6.71980 551,889 0.5 2,647 6.3 2012f 1,250,100 3.4 41,451 5.91981 559,184 1.3 7,295 6.7

f = forecast

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Workforce information

Total Employment Total Employment


Tabl

e 13

U

tah

Non

farm

Em

ploy

men

t by

Indu

stry

and

Une

mpl

oym

ent R

ate

Trad

e,P

rof.

Per

cent

Abs

olut

eTr

ans.

Fin

anci

al&

Bus

Edu

. &

Leis

ure

&O

ther

Une

mpl

oym

ent

Yea

rN

umbe

rC

hang

eC

hang

eM

inin

gC

onst

ru.

Man

ufac

t.U

tiliti

esIn

for.

Act

ivity

Ser

vice

sH

ealth

Hos

pita

lity

Ser

vice

sG

ovt.

Rat

e

1990

723,

629

4.7

32,3

857,

862

28,4

6610

4,22

115

4,52

817

,242

34,8

0470

,801

66,1

6662

,636

19,9

6315

6,94

04.

319

9174

5,20

23.

021

,573

8,09

532

,206

104,

445

159,

321

17,2

8136

,803

77,8

5366

,668

65,8

1417

,468

159,

249

5.0

1992

768,

602

3.2

23,4

888,

132

35,8

4710

4,18

116

3,87

119

,525

38,7

1377

,682

70,2

7469

,716

18,2

9316

2,36

65.

019

9380

9,73

15.

441

,129

8,07

340

,688

108,

406

171,

081

18,6

2542

,826

87,0

2174

,505

74,1

1319

,454

164,

938

3.9

1994

859,

626

6.2

49,8

957,

993

49,3

0711

4,00

818

1,40

520

,586

47,1

8295

,488

77,5

4178

,435

20,6

4216

7,04

13.

719

9590

7,88

65.

648

,260

7,91

156

,282

118,

930

191,

769

22,2

6448

,449

107,

227

80,9

3683

,290

21,3

0416

9,52

53.

619

9695

4,18

35.

146

,297

7,47

461

,860

123,

535

198,

651

26,3

7551

,775

116,

983

84,5

0587

,472

22,2

5917

3,29

33.

519

9799

3,99

94.

239

,816

7,78

965

,420

127,

728

205,

949

27,6

7254

,154

123,

532

88,4

4990

,471

23,4

9717

9,33

83.

119

981,

023,

480

3.0

29,4

617,

690

69,2

6812

9,02

421

1,58

729

,962

56,8

4812

7,92

691

,550

91,6

5525

,128

182,

845

3.8

1999

1,04

8,49

82.

425

,018

7,26

073

,364

127,

707

215,

441

32,8

6158

,397

134,

112

93,8

6893

,082

26,0

7118

6,33

03.

720

001,

074,

879

2.5

26,3

817,

311

72,3

0612

5,78

821

9,72

135

,932

58,7

3013

9,52

410

4,78

795

,287

29,8

8718

4,53

73.

420

011,

081,

685

0.6

6,80

67,

209

71,6

2012

2,09

221

9,95

433

,514

62,2

1413

6,64

610

9,52

098

,328

30,4

7119

0,11

74.

420

021,

073,

746

-0.7

-7,9

396,

880

67,8

3811

3,87

321

6,03

231

,004

63,3

5213

1,91

211

3,69

610

0,94

332

,970

195,

246

5.7

2003

1,07

4,13

10.

038

56,

670

67,5

9911

2,29

121

3,97

030

,016

64,6

7413

1,91

011

8,37

999

,634

32,4

5119

6,53

75.

720

041,

104,

328

2.8

30,1

977,

083

72,6

3111

4,76

521

9,21

230

,272

65,0

4013

8,22

012

3,28

210

2,03

132

,915

198,

877

5.2

2005

1,14

8,32

04.

043

,992

8,47

381

,685

117,

246

225,

938

32,1

0567

,583

146,

704

128,

605

104,

223

33,4

5120

2,30

74.

320

061,

203,

914

4.8

55,5

9410

,024

95,1

6412

3,06

423

4,79

732

,541

71,4

6915

4,83

413

4,41

010

8,47

734

,651

204,

483

2.9

2007

1,25

1,28

23.

947

,368

11,0

3410

3,45

012

7,69

524

5,67

232

,448

74,7

3916

1,02

213

9,99

111

2,82

135

,542

206,

868

2.7

2008

1,25

2,57

30.

11,

291

12,5

0790

,469

125,

852

247,

983

30,7

4774

,053

162,

190

146,

619

114,

817

35,6

2921

1,70

93.

420

091,

188,

736

-5.1

-63,

837

10,6

9470

,492

112,

874

234,

097

29,5

5871

,075

149,

517

150,

874

110,

852

34,0

2421

4,67

97.

720

101,

181,

619

-0.6

-7,1

1710

,442

65,2

2311

1,07

522

9,13

229

,276

67,9

7815

2,33

615

5,00

511

0,62

533

,624

216,

903

8.0

2011

1,20

8,64

92.

327

,030

11,6

5965

,166

113,

684

233,

251

29,4

9568

,391

159,

420

159,

210

113,

512

34,0

9022

0,77

26.

720

12f

1,25

0,10

03.

441

,451

12,8

0071

,800

116,

900

241,

900

31,2

0069

,100

167,

000

163,

600

118,

200

34,9

0022

2,70

05.

9

f = fo

reca

st

Sou

rce:

Uta

h D

epar

tmen

t of

Wor

kfor

ce S

ervi

ces,

Wor

kfor

ce In

form

atio

n

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t


Tabl

e 14

U

tah

Non

farm

Pay

roll

Empl

oym

ent b

y C

ount

y an

d M

ajor

Indu

stry

: 201

1

Trad

e,P

rofe

ss.

&E

duca

tion

&Tr

ansp

.,F

inan

cial

Bus

ines

sH

ealth

Leis

ure

&O

ther

Tota

lM

inin

gC

onst

ruct

ion

Man

ufac

turin

gU

tiliti

esIn

form

atio

nA

ctiv

ityS

ervi

ces

Ser

vice

sH

ospi

talit

yS

ervi

ces

Gov

ernm

ent

Sta

te T

otal

1,20

8,64

911

,659

65,1

6611

3,68

423

3,25

129

,495

68,3

9115

9,42

015

9,21

011

3,51

234

,090

220,

772

Bea

ver

2,10

130

169

7355

9na

49na

6237

337

731

Box

Eld

er16

,364

2599

04,

971

3,41

510

136

877

61,

584

1,36

629

02,

479

Cac

he50

,359

92,

070

10,5

587,

411

666

1,41

55,

296

5,72

93,

845

1,02

012

,339

Car

bon

9,33

097

043

734

32,

263

8227

765

21,

138

750

316

2,10

1D

agge

tt41

5na

13na

35na

0na

011

6na

244

Dav

is10

5,13

615

86,

871

9,81

619

,454

1,35

63,

566

12,5

4411

,725

9,93

92,

882

26,8

25D

uche

sne

8,01

61,

766

693

167

1,84

719

117

424

437

238

519

41,

983

Em

ery

3,63

645

645

420

938

122

5321

176

247

145

913

Gar

field

2,31

69

4140

259

9127

1823

196

217

620

Gra

nd4,

616

115

217

2588

531

150

226

311

1,61

381

962

Iron

15,1

2010

057

11,

370

2,68

211

570

71,

154

1,70

21,

908

315

4,49

6Ju

ab3,

029

8223

661

634

314

6015

943

926

532

783

Kan

e2,

989

588

9941

517

109

5210

689

546

274

0M

illar

d3,

960

9613

919

31,

295

2264

331

358

324

801,

058

Mor

gan

1,78

7na

269

205

365

na59

106

138

159

3244

2P

iute

267

00

na43

0na

na18

38na

156

Ric

h60

6na

36na

830

4015

2613

548

216

Sal

t La

ke58

3,00

23,

220

29,4

9051

,173

118,

395

16,2

4946

,126

95,4

9066

,406

47,2

8117

,942

91,2

30S

an J

uan

4,19

842

423

587

395

656

184

536

573

761,

626

San

pete

6,86

952

288

631

1,04

717

120

813

383

549

614

52,

864

Sev

ier

7,88

759

928

035

52,

601

7018

932

783

483

713

71,

659

Sum

mit

21,8

7453

1,06

678

33,

878

251

1,53

71,

545

1,22

98,

403

597

2,53

2To

oele

15,9

7980

705

1,66

02,

665

219

323

2,70

31,

362

1,37

535

74,

531

Uin

tah

14,1

903,

089

912

191

3,19

213

359

376

11,

006

1,06

039

52,

858

Uta

h18

1,04

476

10,5

5815

,824

30,0

218,

017

5,90

123

,401

41,7

4214

,149

4,27

627

,077

Was

atch

5,98

056

693

217

1,05

310

026

850

954

71,

095

173

1,26

7W

ashi

ngto

n46

,519

142

3,35

02,

344

11,1

5271

51,

823

3,51

18,

116

6,73

71,

320

7,30

9W

ayne

944

na63

1113

3na

na9

150

239

2330

4W

eber

90,1

1623

4,23

511

,910

16,4

2874

74,

236

9,04

312

,429

7,94

62,

691

20,4

27

Sou

rce:

Uta

h D

epar

tmen

t of

Wor

kfor

ce S

ervi

ces,

Wor

kfor

ce In

form

atio

n


Tabl

e 15

U

tah

Non

farm

Pay

roll

Wag

es b

y C

ount

y an

d M

ajor

Indu

stry

: 201

1

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

Trad

e, T

rans

.F

inan

cial

Pro

fess

iona

l &E

duca

tion

&Le

isur

e &

Oth

er

Cou

nty

Tota

lM

inin

g C

onst

ruct

ion

M

anuf

actu

ring

& U

tiliti

esIn

form

atio

nA

ctiv

ityB

usin

ess

Ser

v.H

ealth

Ser

v.H

ospi

talit

yS

ervi

ces

Gov

ernm

ent

Sta

te T

otal

$47,

937.

5$8

53.7

$2,7

97.7

$5,6

78.2

$8,5

27.7

$1,6

27.9

$3,5

54.8

$7,5

84.6

$5,6

51.9

$1,8

30.2

$983

.2$8

,847

.6

Bea

ver

67.0

1.3

8.5

2.4

21.7

na1.

3na

2.1

5.7

1.0

22.7

Box

Eld

er58

8.4

0.8

32.6

280.

010

3.9

1.8

10.8

20.1

39.7

15.5

7.5

75.9

Cac

he1,

531.

40.

272

.442

3.2

203.

320

.546

.215

9.0

162.

545

.726

.937

1.4

Car

bon

359.

282

.821

.916

.886

.71.

97.

721

.535

.19.

09.

066

.7D

agge

tt12

.60.

00.

6na

1.3

nana

nana

2.2

na8.

4D

avis

4,05

6.7

7.0

290.

249

0.9

599.

362

.812

8.1

571.

039

1.6

125.

873

.61,

316.

3D

uche

sne

346.

112

4.0

34.5

6.9

73.2

7.5

5.9

11.1

11.9

4.3

7.4

59.5

Em

ery

215.

633

.121

.90.

749

.64.

91.

565

.91.

53.

06.

826

.7G

arfie

ld59

.20.

51.

40.

95.

93.

90.

70.

57.

016

.40.

421

.5G

rand

129.

67.

58.

00.

724

.01.

04.

17.

711

.329

.22.

733

.6Iro

n42

0.9

2.9

15.4

53.9

70.1

2.9

26.9

30.8

47.2

21.9

8.2

140.

7Ju

ab90

.53.

19.

123

.48.

7na

1.9

10.0

11.1

na1.

119

.1K

ane

82.6

na2.

64.

09.

1na

2.8

1.3

3.5

17.8

15.9

24.7

Mill

ard

140.

75.

44.

58.

258

.60.

61.

711

.011

.43.

22.

134

.1M

orga

n60

.9na

9.3

10.4

15.0

na1.

85.

82.

91.

91.

112

.3P

iute

6.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.2

0.0

nana

0.6

0.3

na4.

1R

ich

13.6

na0.

9na

1.7

na0.

8na

0.9

1.7

0.9

6.3

Sal

t La

ke25

,917

.427

8.8

1,43

3.0

2,74

4.5

4,90

6.0

836.

62,

682.

34,

953.

02,

627.

484

4.1

551.

94,

059.

9S

an J

uan

134.

123

.28.

02.

38.

2na

na5.

619

.710

.11.

953

.5S

anpe

te17

6.6

4.3

8.4

19.1

21.9

6.9

6.3

3.8

23.0

4.0

4.3

74.6

Sev

ier

239.

030

.87.

011

.778

.92.

06.

410

.824

.88.

94.

053

.6S

umm

it76

6.2

3.1

43.7

48.1

118.

210

.682

.586

.646

.721

1.5

19.7

95.4

Tooe

le67

4.2

4.5

42.6

84.0

82.7

8.1

10.1

158.

043

.218

.78.

921

3.4

Uin

tah

641.

822

6.1

43.2

6.5

142.

04.

531

.230

.629

.113

.213

.210

2.3

Uta

h6,

438.

73.

937

3.3

766.

198

0.2

603.

024

7.7

997.

11,

290.

618

8.6

110.

287

7.5

Was

atch

187.

03.

229

.17.

927

.13.

59.

119

.517

.117

.74.

548

.3W

ashi

ngto

n1,

396.

14.

110

3.5

80.6

326.

521

.465

.111

1.6

308.

310

1.2

30.4

243.

4W

ayne

25.7

na2.

5na

3.0

nana

na5.

53.

40.

59.

7W

eber

3,15

9.0

2.0

169.

558

4.6

499.

521

.917

0.1

291.

447

6.3

102.

469

.177

2.3

Not

e: T

otal

s di

ffer

in t

his

tabl

e fro

m o

ther

tab

les

due

to d

iffer

ent

rele

ase

date

s or

dat

a so

urce

s.

Sou

rce:

Uta

h D

epar

tmen

t of

Wor

kfor

ce S

ervi

ces,

Wor

kfor

ce In

form

atio

n


Tabl

e 16

U

tah

Ave

rage

Mon

thly

Wag

e by

Indu

stry

Dol

lars

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Ave

rage

Non

farm

Wag

e$2

,401

$2,4

70$2

,510

$2,5

51$2

,641

$2,7

36$2

,883

$3,0

43$3

,121

$3,1

71$3

,234

$3,3

05

Min

ing

3,99

7

4,

264

4,12

24,

243

4,60

64,

778

5,24

05,

664

5,79

25,

503

5,83

76,

102

C

onst

ruct

ion

2,48

1

2,

536

2,56

32,

544

2,58

92,

695

2,95

93,

136

3,27

93,

407

3,50

73,

578

M

anuf

actu

ring

2,91

5

3,

020

3,06

83,

159

3,21

63,

312

3,47

03,

666

3,87

03,

962

4,10

94,

162

Tr

ade,

Tra

ns.,

Util

ities

2,32

2

2,

335

2,39

52,

424

2,53

72,

608

2,73

92,

936

2,88

62,

881

2,95

63,

047

In

form

atio

n3,

506

3,36

93,

329

3,34

23,

489

3,75

23,

658

3,84

03,

896

3,99

14,

267

4,59

9

Fin

anci

al A

ctiv

ity2,

925

3,04

53,

139

3,27

43,

420

3,57

43,

729

3,91

03,

904

3,97

14,

144

4,33

2

Pro

fess

iona

l & B

usin

ess

Ser

v.2,

720

2,83

62,

814

2,88

93,

001

3,10

73,

312

3,50

93,

713

3,83

53,

904

3,96

5

Edu

catio

n &

Hea

lth S

erv.

2,21

0

2,

253

2,29

42,

352

2,43

62,

530

2,67

02,

741

2,81

02,

917

2,92

02,

958

Le

isur

e &

Hos

pita

lity

958

1,

021

1,11

51,

048

1,07

01,

117

1,19

41,

258

1,29

51,

292

1,32

61,

344

O

ther

Ser

vice

s1,

639

1,84

31,

854

1,88

01,

960

2,01

82,

130

2,19

22,

327

2,31

12,

363

2,40

3

Gov

ernm

ent

2,41

7

2,

544

2,65

32,

696

2,78

12,

847

2,96

23,

121

3,22

53,

325

3,31

23,

340

Per

cent

Cha

nge

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

2010

-11

Ave

rage

Non

farm

Wag

e2.

8%1.

6%1.

6%3.

5%3.

6%5.

4%5.

5%2.

6%1.

6%2.

0%2.

2%

Nat

ural

Res

. &

Min

ing

6.7

-3.3

2.9

8.6

3.7

9.7

8.1

2.3

-5.0

6.1

4.5

C

onst

ruct

ion

2.2

1.1

-0.7

1.8

4.1

9.8

6.0

4.5

3.9

2.9

2.0

M

anuf

actu

ring

3.6

1.6

3.0

1.8

3.0

4.8

5.6

5.6

2.4

3.7

1.3

Tr

ade,

Tra

ns.,

Util

ities

0.6

2.6

1.2

4.7

2.8

5.0

7.2

-1.7

-0.2

2.6

3.1

In

form

atio

n-3

.9-1

.20.

44.

47.

5-2

.55.

01.

52.

46.

97.

8

Fin

anci

al A

ctiv

ity4.

13.

14.

34.

54.

54.

34.

9-0

.21.

74.

44.

5

Pro

fess

iona

l & B

usin

ess

Ser

v.4.

3-0

.82.

73.

93.

56.

65.

95.

83.

31.

81.

6

Edu

catio

n &

Hea

lth S

erv.

1.9

1.8

2.5

3.6

3.9

5.5

2.7

2.5

3.8

0.1

1.3

Le

isur

e &

Hos

pita

lity

6.6

9.2

-6.0

2.1

4.4

6.9

5.4

2.9

-0.3

2.7

1.4

O

ther

Ser

vice

s12

.50.

61.

44.

33.

05.

62.

96.

1-0

.72.

21.

7

Gov

ernm

ent

5.3

4.3

1.6

3.2

2.4

4.0

5.4

3.3

3.1

-0.4

0.8

Sou

rce:

Uta

h D

epar

tmen

t of

Wor

kfor

ce S

ervi

ces,

Wor

kfor

ce In

form

atio

n


Table 17 Utah Labor Force, Nonfarm Jobs and Wages

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012f 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Civilian Labor Force 1,380,230 1,382,627 1,361,756 1,338,259 1,350,848 0.2 -1.5 -1.7 0.9 Employed Persons 1,332,003 1,277,162 1,252,715 1,248,197 1,271,744 -4.1 -1.9 -0.4 1.9 Unemployed Persons 48,227 105,465 109,041 90,062 79,104 118.7 3.4 -17.4 -12.2 Utah Unemployment Rate 3.5 7.6 8.0 6.7 5.9 U.S. Unemployment Rate 5.8 9.3 9.6 9.0 8.2

Total Nonfarm Jobs 1,252,470 1,188,736 1,181,619 1,208,649 1,250,100 -5.1 -0.6 2.3 3.4 Mining 12,506 10,694 10,442 11,659 12,800 -14.5 -2.4 11.7 9.8 Construction 90,469 70,492 65,223 65,166 71,800 -22.1 -7.5 -0.1 10.2 Manufacturing 125,852 112,874 111,075 113,684 116,900 -10.3 -1.6 2.3 2.8 Trade, Trans., Utilities 247,978 234,097 229,132 233,251 241,900 -5.6 -2.1 1.8 3.7 Information 30,747 29,558 29,276 29,495 31,200 -3.9 -1.0 0.7 5.8 Financial Activity 74,050 71,075 67,978 68,391 69,100 -4.0 -4.4 0.6 1.0 Professional & Business Services 162,194 149,517 152,336 159,420 167,000 -7.8 1.9 4.7 4.8 Education & Health Services 146,617 150,874 155,005 159,210 163,600 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 Leisure & Hospitality 114,813 110,852 110,625 113,512 118,200 -3.4 -0.2 2.6 4.1 Other Services 35,534 34,024 33,624 34,090 34,900 -4.2 -1.2 1.4 2.4 Government 211,710 214,679 216,903 220,772 222,700 1.4 1.0 1.8 0.9

Goods-producing 228,827 194,060 186,740 190,509 201,500 -15.2 -3.8 2.0 5.8Service-producing 1,023,643 994,676 994,879 1,018,141 1,048,600 -2.8 0.0 2.3 3.0 Percent Svc.-producing 81.7% 83.7% 84.2% 84.2% 83.9%

U.S. Nonfarm Job Growth % -0.6 -4.3 -0.7 1.2 1.4

Total Nonfarm Wages (millions) $46,913 $45,242 $45,876 $47,967 $51,329 -3.6 1.4 4.6 7.0 Average Annual Wage $37,456 $38,059 $38,825 $39,686 $41,060 1.6 2.0 2.2 3.5 Average Monthly Wage $3,121 $3,172 $3,235 $3,307 $3,422 1.6 2.0 2.2 3.5

Establishments (first quarter) 85,492 83,263 80,419 80,567 81,888

f = forecast

Note: Numbers in this table may differ from other tables as not all industrial sectors are listed here.

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Information

Percent Change


Table 18 Utah's Civilian Labor Force and Components by County: 2011 Annual Averages

Civilian Total Total UnemploymentCounty Labor Force Employed Unemployed Rate

State Total 1,338,259 1,248,197 90,062 6.7

Beaver 3,370 3,125 245 7.3Box Elder 21,148 19,421 1,727 8.2Cache 60,980 58,036 2,944 4.8Carbon 9,883 9,160 723 7.3Daggett 467 438 29 6.2Davis 143,526 134,583 8,943 6.2Duchesne 9,974 9,422 552 5.5Emery 4,995 4,617 378 7.6Garfield 2,895 2,578 317 10.9Grand 5,333 4,811 522 9.8Iron 19,628 18,010 1,618 8.2Juab 4,101 3,738 363 8.9Kane 3,404 3,140 264 7.8Millard 6,356 6,029 327 5.1Morgan 4,193 3,955 238 5.7Piute 772 720 52 6.7Rich 1,271 1,201 70 5.5Salt Lake 546,055 510,310 35,745 6.5San Juan 5,221 4,622 599 11.5Sanpete 10,556 9,638 918 8.7Sevier 9,579 8,872 707 7.4Summit 21,537 20,231 1,306 6.1Tooele 27,754 25,837 1,917 6.9Uintah 17,550 16,651 899 5.1Utah 218,763 204,526 14,237 6.5Wasatch 9,879 9,096 783 7.9Washington 56,873 51,966 4,907 8.6Wayne 1,368 1,225 143 10.5Weber 110,832 102,240 8,592 7.8



Table 19 Utah’s Largest Nonfarm Employers: 2011

EmploymentFirm Name Business Range

Intermountain Healthcare Healthcare 20,000 +University of Utah (Including Hospital) Higher Education 20,000 +State of Utah State Government 20,000 +Brigham Young University Higher Education 15,000-19,999Wal-Mart Warehouse Clubs & Supercenters 15,000-19,999Hill Airforce Base Federal Government 10,000-14,999Granite School District Public Education 7,000-9,999Utah State University Higher Education 7,000-9,999Davis County School District Public Education 7,000-9,999Smith's Food and Drug Centers Grocery Stores 5,000-6,999Alpine School District Public Education 5,000-6,999U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Government 5,000-6,999Salt Lake County Local Government 5,000-6,999Jordan School District Public Education 5,000-6,999U.S. Postal Service Federal Government 5,000-6,999Utah Valley University Higher Education 4,000-4,999The Canyons School District Public Education 4,000-4,999Zions Bank Mangement Services Banking 4,000-4,999Weber County School District Public Education 3,000-3,999Convergys Corporation Telephone Call Centers 3,000-3,999Delta Airlines Air Transportation 3,000-3,999Salt Lake City School District Public Education 3,000-3,999L3 Communications Corporation Electronics Manufacturing 3,000-3,999Wells Fargo Bank Banking 3,000-3,999Nebo School District Public Education 3,000-3,999SkyWest Airlines Air Transportation 3,000-3,999Home Depot Home Centers 3,000-3,999United Parcel Service Courier Service 3,000-3,999Autoliv Motor Vehicle Equipment Manufacturing 3,000-3,999Washington County School District Public Education 3,000-3,999Weber State University Higher Education 3,000-3,999Salt Lake City Corporation Local Government 3,000-3,999Discover Products, Inc. Consumer Loans 2,000-2,999Harmons Grocery Stores 2,000-2,999Salt Lake Community College Higher Education 2,000-2,999ARUP Laboratories, Inc. Medical Laboratory 2,000-2,999VA Hospital (federal government) Healthcare 2,000-2,999Costco Retail Warehouse Clubs 2,000-2,999ATK Launch Systems Aerospace Manufacturing 2,000-2,999Sizzling Platter, LLC (Sizzler & Little Caesar's) Restaurants 2,000-2,999Teleperformance Telephone Call Centers 2,000-2,999Kennecott Utah Copper Mining and Smelting 2,000-2,999Pacificorp Electric Utility 2,000-2,999JetBlue Airways Corporation Air Transportation 2,000-2,999



Table 20 Employment Status of Utah’s Civilian Noninstitutional Population by Sex & Age: 2011 Annual Averages

Civilian U.S. CivilianNoninstitutional Percent of Total Labor Force %

Population Number Population Employment Number Rate of Population

Total 2,040,000 1,367,000 67.0 1,272,000 95,000 6.9 64.116 to 19 years 158,000 67,000 42.3 55,000 12,000 17.9 34.120 to 24 years 213,000 166,000 78.1 152,000 14,000 8.4 71.325 to 34 years 485,000 392,000 80.7 368,000 24,000 6.1 81.535 to 44 years 357,000 286,000 80.3 265,000 21,000 7.3 82.745 to 54 years 277,000 229,000 82.7 219,000 10,000 4.4 80.755 to 64 years 255,000 177,000 69.5 166,000 11,000 6.2 64.365 and over 296,000 51,000 17.2 48,000 3,000 5.9 17.9

MenTotal 1,016,000 772,000 76.0 715,000 57,000 7.4 70.516 to 19 years 79,000 33,000 41.7 25,000 8,000 24.2 33.720 to 24 years 109,000 88,000 81.1 80,000 8,000 9.1 74.725 to 34 years 251,000 235,000 93.5 222,000 13,000 5.5 89.235 to 44 years 176,000 163,000 93.1 150,000 13,000 8.0 90.945 to 54 years 140,000 125,000 89.5 119,000 6,000 4.8 86.255 to 64 years 119,000 96,000 80.7 89,000 7,000 7.3 69.3

WomenTotal 1,024,000 595,000 58.1 557,000 38,000 6.4 58.116 to 19 years 79,000 34,000 43.0 30,000 4,000 11.8 34.620 to 24 years 109,000 78,000 74.9 72,000 6,000 7.7 67.825 to 34 years 251,000 157,000 67.0 146,000 11,000 7.0 73.935 to 44 years 176,000 123,000 67.8 115,000 8,000 6.5 74.745 to 54 years 140,000 104,000 75.6 100,000 4,000 3.8 75.455 to 64 years 119,000 81,000 59.7 77,000 4,000 4.9 59.5

Hispanic Origin 206,000 145,000 70.4 132,000 13,000 9.0 66.5Men 112,000 89,000 79.4 81,000 8,000 9.0 76.5Woman 94,000 56,000 59.7 52,000 4,000 7.1 55.9

Notes:1. Totals may not add due to rounding.2. Numbers in this table differ from other tables due to different data sources.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://stats.bls.gov/lau/ptable14full2011.pdf

Civilian Labor Force Unemployment

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 59 Personal Income UT

Total Personal Income Total personal income (TPI) is the sum of all individual per-sonal income in a given region. There are three components of TPI: 1) earnings by place of work; 2) income from divi-dends, interest and rent (DIR); and, 3) income from transfer payments, such as social security, welfare and pensions. The largest component of TPI is typically earnings by place of work, which consists of the total earnings from farm and nonfarm industries including contributions for social insur-ance. In 2011, Utah’s TPI was an estimated $94.4 billion, a 5.9% increase from $89.2 billion in 2010. Of total personal income, $73.7 billion (78%) can be attributed to earnings by place of work. Of this amount, 55% came from wages, 14% came from supplements to wages and salaries, and 8% came from proprietors' income. This increase reflects the contin-ued economic recovery that began in June of 2009. Composition of Total Personal Income In 2011, Utah's income from Dividends, Interest, and Rent (DIR) increased to $14.7 billion and income from transfer payments was $13.4 billion. These two factors distinguish the economic composition of Utah from the rest of the nation. Utah’s income from DIR is slightly lower than the national rate (15.6% vs. 16.2%). But the more significant difference is that Utah transfer payments comprise a much smaller portion of TPI than the national average (14.2% vs. 17.9%). Thus, Utahns rely more on wage earnings for income than their counterparts nationally. In 2011, most earnings in Utah were in the private sector, 80.6% of the earnings by place of work, compared to 81.3% nationally. The public sector accounted for 19% of earnings, higher than the nation (17.6%). Within the Utah private sec-tor, the manufacturing sector led earnings, followed by health care and social services, and professional, scientific, and tech-nical services respectively. At the national level, health care accounted for the largest percentage of private sector earn-ings followed by manufacturing and professional, scientific, and technical services. In 2011, the majority of Utah sectors experienced growth in earnings with the exception of utilities and management of companies and enterprises industries. The public sector experienced 3.1% growth in earnings.

Per Capita Income Per capita income (PCI) is a region’s total personal income divided by its total population. Personal income and per cap-ita earnings data are reported quarterly by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Utah's estimated 2011 PCI was $33,509 up 4.3% from the 2010 level of $32,121, ranking Utah 47th among the 50 states and Washington, D.C. During the 1970s, Utah's PCI ranged between 82.5% and 85.7% of the nation's PCI. From 1977 to 1989, however, it dropped 10 percentage points to 75.8%. Utah PCI as a percent of nation-al PCI reached a high of 82% in 2001 and has since fluctuated around 80%, currently standing at 80.6% of the national PCI ($41,560) for 2011. The state’s PCI remains weak against the national for two reasons: 1) Utah’s average wages are general-ly below the national average; and, 2) Utah's population is the nation's youngest. Utah’s low PCI reflects the relatively larger proportion of non-wage earners in the denominator. Personal and Per Capita Income by County The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis has not yet released 2011 county level PI numbers so details for 2009 and 2010 are discussed. Revised 2009 numbers show the recession beginning in late 2007 had a deeper impact on Utah counties than the previously released data showed. Personal Income declined in all but six counties in 2009. Oil and gas depend-ent Uintah County had the largest decline (-14.1%). Beaver County, whose largest employment industry is government, had the highest increase (7.5%). In 2010 all counties had positive personal income growth, averaging 3.8%. The larg-est percentage increase was in Millard County (14.2%) and the lowest was Juab County (0.2%). In 2010, Summit County had an estimated per capita income of $68,524, the highest in the state, which was more than double the state average ($32,121) and was the only county which exceeded the national average ($39,791). Summit was followed by Salt Lake ($37,827) and Duchesne ($33,928) Counties. Sanpete County ($21,302) had the lowest per capi-ta income, only 71% of the Utah average. 2012 Outlook Utah personal income in the first two quarters of 2012 ex-ceeded the first two quarters of 2011 by 4.3%. Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Utah ranked fourth in year-over the rate of personal income growth. Total personal income is expected to grow by 4.5% in 2012. The two-percentage point reduction in the personal contribution rate for social security, which was part of the Tax Relief, Unem-ployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, accounted for a significant portion of the 2011 growth. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 extended the reduction through December of 2012 and will most likely be extended for 2013. This will contribute to continued personal income growth in Utah.

Personal Income

Utah’s total personal income was an estimated $94.4 billion, a 5.9% increase from $89.2 billion in 2010. Utah's estimated 2011 per capita income was $33,509 up 4.3% from the 2010 level of $32,121. The current recession has ended, but it last-ed much longer than the 16-month average of previous reces-sions, and its effects will continue to be felt as unemployment remains high and the economy slowly returns to its pre-recession levels. With a young, well-educated population, diversified high-tech industry, growing tourism industry, and business-friendly conditions all contribute to the continuing recovery.


Figure 24 Utah Per Capita Income as a Percent of the United States

85.7

%

85.6

%

85.

3%

84.

2%

83.

4%

83.6

%

83.5

%

82.4

%

81.5

%

80.3

%

78.

4%

76.3

%

75.

8% 76

.7% 78

.1%

77.6

% 78.8

% 79.

7% 80

.7%

81.

4%

81.9

%

81.4

%

81.

0%

80.9

% 82.

0%

81.

5%

80.0

%

79.1

%

80.7

%

80.

4%

80.

5%

79.

4%

82.

2%

80.

7%

80.6

%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011



Table 21 Components of Utah's Total Personal Income

Percent 2011 Percent IndustryChange Distribution Distribution

Components 2010 2011 2010-2011 Utah U.S. Utah U.S.

Personal income $89,152 $94,401 5.9% 100% 100%

Earnings by place of work 70,392 73,707 4.7% 78.1% 73.0% less: Contributions for government social insurance 7,817 7,479 -4.3% 7.9% 7.1% plus: Adjustment for residence (8) (3) -58.2% 0.0% 0.0% equals: Net earnings by place of residence 62,567 66,224 5.8% 70.2% 65.9% plus: Dividends, interest, and rent 13,528 14,739 9.0% 15.6% 16.2% plus: Personal current transfer receipts 13,057 13,437 2.9% 14.2% 17.9%

Components of earnings Wage and salary disbursements 49,889 52,138 4.5% 55.2% 51.4% Supplements to wages and salaries 12,714 13,496 6.2% 14.3% 12.5% Proprietors' income 7,789 8,073 3.6% 8.6% 9.1% Farm proprietors' income 24 80 236.5% 0.1% 0.6% Nonfarm proprietors' income 7,766 7,993 2.9% 8.5% 8.5%

Earnings by industry Farm earnings 205 266 29.6% 0.3% 0.8% 0.4% 1.1% Nonfarm earnings 70,187 73,441 4.6% 77.8% 72.2% 99.6% 98.9% Private earnings 56,591 59,421 5.0% 62.9% 59.4% 80.6% 81.3% Forestry, fishing, and related activities 64 69 8.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% Mining 973 1,134 16.6% 1.2% 0.9% 1.5% 1.2% Utilities 532 531 -0.1% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% Construction 4,908 5,033 2.5% 5.3% 3.8% 6.8% 5.3% Manufacturing 7,436 7,787 4.7% 8.2% 7.3% 10.6% 10.0% Wholesale trade 3,151 3,473 10.2% 3.7% 3.7% 4.7% 5.1% Retail trade 5,309 5,479 3.2% 5.8% 4.4% 7.4% 6.1% Transportation and warehousing 2,844 2,977 4.7% 3.2% 2.4% 4.0% 3.3% Information 1,989 2,146 7.9% 2.3% 2.4% 2.9% 3.3% Finance and insurance 4,497 4,672 3.9% 4.9% 5.5% 6.3% 7.5% Real estate and rental and leasing 1,375 1,441 4.8% 1.5% 1.3% 2.0% 1.8% Professional, scientific, and technical services 5,721 6,144 7.4% 6.5% 7.2% 8.3% 9.8% Management of companies and enterprises 1,537 1,505 -2.1% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0% 2.5% Administrative and waste management services 2,630 2,892 10.0% 3.1% 2.9% 3.9% 3.9% Educational services 1,363 1,458 7.0% 1.5% 1.2% 2.0% 1.7% Health care and social assistance 6,269 6,462 3.1% 6.8% 8.1% 8.8% 11.0% Arts, entertainment, and recreation 584 611 4.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 1.1% Accommodation and food services 1,956 2,071 5.9% 2.2% 2.2% 2.8% 3.0% Other services, except public administration 3,453 3,533 2.3% 3.7% 2.7% 4.8% 3.7% Government and government enterprises 13,595 14,020 3.1% 14.9% 12.8% 19.0% 17.6% Federal, civilian 3,428 3,556 3.7% 3.8% 2.5% 4.8% 3.5% Military 1,063 1,024 -3.7% 1.1% 1.4% 1.4% 1.9% State government 4,154 4,285 3.2% 4.5% 2.5% 5.8% 3.4% Local government 4,950 5,155 4.1% 5.5% 6.4% 7.0% 8.8%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Millions of Dollars


Table 22 Personal and Per Capita Income

Utah as % Utah as %Year Utah U.S. of U.S. Utah U.S. Utah U.S. of U.S.

1960 $1,827 $408,128 0.45% $2,030 $2,268 89.5%1961 1,952 425,625 0.46% 6.8% 4.3% 2,085 2,326 89.6%1962 2,132 453,003 0.47% 9.2% 6.4% 2,225 2,439 91.2%1963 2,215 475,971 0.47% 3.9% 5.1% 2,274 2,526 89.9%1964 2,327 510,348 0.46% 5.1% 7.2% 2,380 2,671 89.0%1965 2,464 551,193 0.45% 5.9% 8.0% 2,479 2,849 87.2%1966 2,617 598,480 0.44% 6.2% 8.6% 2,594 3,061 84.7%1967 2,764 641,974 0.43% 5.6% 7.3% 2,713 3,253 83.3%1968 2,975 704,759 0.42% 7.6% 9.8% 2,892 3,536 81.7%1969 3,251 772,084 0.42% 9.3% 9.6% 3,105 3,836 80.9%1970 3,611 832,238 0.43% 11.1% 7.8% 3,389 4,084 83.0%1971 4,016 897,559 0.45% 11.2% 7.8% 3,649 4,340 84.1%1972 4,505 987,073 0.46% 12.2% 10.0% 3,971 4,717 84.2%1973 5,045 1,105,426 0.46% 12.0% 12.0% 4,316 5,230 82.5%1974 5,680 1,217,673 0.47% 12.6% 10.2% 4,738 5,708 83.0%1975 6,384 1,329,714 0.48% 12.4% 9.2% 5,173 6,172 83.8%1976 7,322 1,469,355 0.50% 14.7% 10.5% 5,755 6,754 85.2%1977 8,351 1,626,621 0.51% 14.0% 10.7% 6,344 7,402 85.7%1978 9,625 1,830,836 0.53% 15.3% 12.6% 7,055 8,243 85.6%1979 11,034 2,052,037 0.54% 14.6% 12.1% 7,792 9,138 85.3%1980 12,506 2,292,903 0.55% 13.3% 11.7% 8,492 10,091 84.2%1981 14,165 2,572,070 0.55% 13.3% 12.2% 9,347 11,209 83.4%1982 15,510 2,757,048 0.56% 9.5% 7.2% 9,953 11,901 83.6%1983 16,756 2,941,857 0.57% 8.0% 6.7% 10,506 12,583 83.5%1984 18,448 3,256,048 0.57% 10.1% 10.7% 11,371 13,807 82.4%1985 19,593 3,482,520 0.56% 6.2% 7.0% 11,926 14,637 81.5%1986 20,490 3,683,091 0.56% 4.6% 5.8% 12,322 15,338 80.3%1987 21,231 3,909,771 0.54% 3.6% 6.2% 12,652 16,137 78.4%1988 22,236 4,216,123 0.53% 4.7% 7.8% 13,162 17,244 76.3%1989 23,782 4,541,996 0.52% 7.0% 7.7% 13,941 18,402 75.8%1990 25,704 4,831,282 0.53% 8.1% 6.4% 14,847 19,354 76.7%1991 27,549 5,013,484 0.55% 7.2% 3.8% 15,479 19,818 78.1%1992 29,636 5,335,268 0.56% 7.6% 6.4% 16,135 20,799 77.6%1993 31,978 5,558,374 0.58% 7.9% 4.2% 16,845 21,385 78.8%1994 34,848 5,866,796 0.59% 9.0% 5.5% 17,775 22,297 79.7%1995 37,795 6,194,245 0.61% 8.5% 5.6% 18,765 23,262 80.7%1996 41,151 6,584,404 0.62% 8.9% 6.3% 19,899 24,442 81.4%1997 44,518 6,994,388 0.64% 8.2% 6.2% 21,001 25,654 81.9%1998 48,057 7,519,327 0.64% 8.0% 7.5% 22,188 27,258 81.4%1999 50,555 7,906,131 0.64% 5.2% 5.1% 22,943 28,333 81.0%2000 55,025 8,554,866 0.64% 8.8% 8.2% 24,515 30,319 80.9%2001 58,504 8,878,830 0.66% 6.3% 3.8% 25,618 31,157 82.0%2002 59,873 9,054,702 0.66% 2.3% 2.0% 25,754 31,481 81.5%2003 61,485 9,369,072 0.66% 2.7% 3.5% 26,051 32,295 80.0%2004 65,453 9,928,790 0.66% 6.5% 6.0% 27,254 33,909 79.1%2005 71,530 10,476,669 0.68% 9.3% 5.5% 29,104 35,452 80.7%2006 78,378 11,256,516 0.70% 9.6% 7.4% 31,035 37,725 80.4%2007 85,106 11,900,562 0.72% 8.6% 5.7% 32,761 39,506 80.5%2008 90,610 12,451,660 0.73% 6.5% 4.6% 34,025 40,947 79.4%2009 86,544 11,852,715 0.73% -4.5% -4.8% 31,778 38,637 82.2%2010 89,152 12,308,496 0.72% 3.0% 3.8% 32,121 39,791 80.7%2011 94,401 12,949,905 0.73% 5.9% 5.2% 33,509 41,560 80.6%


Annual Growth Rates(Millions of Dollars)Total Personal Income Per Capita Personal Income

(Dollars)


Table 23 Total Personal Income by County

Percent Change

2007 2008 2009 2010 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

County Average $2,935 $3,124 $2,998 $3,112 6.5% -4.1% 3.8%

Beaver 157 169 182 184 8.1% 7.5% 1.2%Box Elder 1,334 1,457 1,421 1,493 9.2% -2.4% 5.0%Cache 2,708 2,993 2,934 3,093 10.5% -2.0% 5.4%Carbon 618 664 673 698 7.5% 1.3% 3.7%Daggett 21 28 30 32 36.7% 6.4% 6.3%Davis 9,601 10,171 10,020 10,409 5.9% -1.5% 3.9%Duchesne 570 690 632 632 21.2% -8.5% 0.1%Emery 257 273 283 305 6.3% 3.6% 7.8%Garfield 120 133 132 142 11.1% -0.9% 8.0%Grand 271 306 294 308 13.0% -4.0% 4.7%Iron 1,001 1,072 1,049 1,072 7.1% -2.1% 2.2%Juab 234 244 237 237 4.1% -2.9% 0.2%Kane 211 225 218 225 6.7% -3.1% 3.1%Millard 327 356 323 369 8.8% -9.1% 14.2%Morgan 262 289 285 299 10.2% -1.3% 4.7%Piute 33 37 36 37 13.1% -2.6% 1.7%Rich 62 73 69 71 18.7% -5.1% 2.4%Salt Lake 37,818 39,667 37,679 39,084 4.9% -5.0% 3.7%San Juan 270 289 305 323 6.9% 5.4% 6.0%Sanpete 513 588 559 594 14.5% -4.9% 6.3%Sevier 498 541 531 549 8.5% -1.7% 3.3%Summit 2,281 2,566 2,386 2,503 12.5% -7.0% 4.9%Tooele 1,402 1,499 1,509 1,567 6.9% 0.7% 3.8%Uintah 912 1,068 917 936 17.1% -14.1% 2.0%Utah 12,252 13,173 12,496 12,947 7.5% -5.1% 3.6%Wasatch 600 674 637 666 12.3% -5.5% 4.6%Washington 3,558 3,815 3,668 3,753 7.2% -3.9% 2.3%Wayne 64 72 70 74 12.3% -2.5% 5.6%Weber 7,150 7,477 7,355 7,648 4.6% -1.6% 4.0%


Millions of Dollars


Table 24 Total Per Capita Personal Income by County

Percent Change

2007 2008 2009 2010 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

County Average $28,568 $30,769 $29,173 $29,930 7.7% -5.2% 2.6%

Beaver 25,014 26,419 27,786 27,692 5.6% 5.2% -0.3%Box Elder 28,271 30,073 28,782 29,746 6.4% -4.3% 3.3%Cache 26,137 28,022 26,606 27,297 7.2% -5.1% 2.6%Carbon 30,071 32,260 31,818 32,536 7.3% -1.4% 2.3%Daggett 21,313 28,577 29,116 30,095 34.1% 1.9% 3.4%Davis 33,310 34,384 33,182 33,817 3.2% -3.5% 1.9%Duchesne 34,221 39,655 34,098 33,928 15.9% -14.0% -0.5%Emery 24,316 25,422 25,961 27,759 4.5% 2.1% 6.9%Garfield 24,681 26,550 26,007 27,439 7.6% -2.0% 5.5%Grand 30,688 34,119 32,551 33,098 11.2% -4.6% 1.7%Iron 22,932 24,060 22,965 23,164 4.9% -4.6% 0.9%Juab 24,396 24,331 23,200 23,103 -0.3% -4.6% -0.4%Kane 31,128 32,860 31,174 31,454 5.6% -5.1% 0.9%Millard 27,338 29,277 26,180 29,420 7.1% -10.6% 12.4%Morgan 29,877 31,648 30,604 31,344 5.9% -3.3% 2.4%Piute 23,209 24,653 23,740 23,622 6.2% -3.7% -0.5%Rich 28,974 32,789 30,752 31,351 13.2% -6.2% 1.9%Salt Lake 38,443 39,685 37,057 37,827 3.2% -6.6% 2.1%San Juan 19,280 20,034 21,001 21,800 3.9% 4.8% 3.8%Sanpete 19,853 21,793 20,310 21,302 9.8% -6.8% 4.9%Sevier 24,620 26,244 25,670 26,342 6.6% -2.2% 2.6%Summit 65,831 72,852 66,572 68,524 10.7% -8.6% 2.9%Tooele 26,052 26,806 26,378 26,777 2.9% -1.6% 1.5%Uintah 30,497 34,457 27,860 28,856 13.0% -19.1% 3.6%Utah 26,092 27,015 24,753 24,906 3.5% -8.4% 0.6%Wasatch 28,042 30,474 27,830 28,107 8.7% -8.7% 1.0%Washington 26,896 28,141 26,753 27,095 4.6% -4.9% 1.3%Wayne 24,116 26,261 25,080 26,642 8.9% -4.5% 6.2%Weber 32,864 33,429 32,240 32,934 1.7% -3.6% 2.2%


2012 Economic Report to the Governor 65 Gross Domestic Product by State UT

Nominal GDP Utah's nominal GDP (measured in current dollars) was esti-mated to be $124.5 billion in 2011 up from $119.2 billion in 2010. This represents a growth rate of 4.4%, remaining be-low the 2005-2007 pre-recession trend, when Utah’s nominal GDP growth averaged 9.6% per year. However, Utah’s growth rate was above the national growth rate of 3.9% over the 2010 to 2011 period. Real GDP Utah's real GDP (measured in 2005 chained dollars) was $108.3 billion in 2011, up from $106.2 billion in 2010. This represents a growth rate of 2.0%, the 11th highest in the na-tion. Utah’s growth also outpaced the national average of 1.5% for 2010 to 2011. Of Utah’s growth, 95% came from growth in private industry led by information services, whole-sale trade, and finance and insurance. Industry Growth The information industry showed the strongest real GDP industry growth for the 2010 to 2011 period, growing from $4.14 billion to $4.6 billion, an 11% increase. Wholesale trade grew from $4.63 billion to $4.99 billion, a 7.7% year over increase. Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting was down 11%, decreasing from $490 million in 2010 to $436 million in 2011. The utilities industry gross product also dropped from $1.22 billion in 2010 to $1.12 billion in 2011, a 7.6% decrease. Conclusion After more than a decade of posting strong increases in ag-gregate production, Utah GDP growth slowed along with the nation in the late 2000s. While the nation appears to be re-turning slowly to pre-recession growth levels, Utah GDP growth continues to outpace the national rate. However, any national slowdown due to fiscal shocks to the economy is likely to similarly impact Utah’s growth rate.

Gross Domestic Product by State

Gross domestic product (GDP) by state details the value of final goods and services produced in a state. It is the state-level counterpart to the national GDP. Conceptually, GDP by state is gross output less intermediate inputs, and as such it measures the economic activity within the state. Real GDP controls for inflation by using “chained” dollars (a weighted average of data in successive pairs of years) which is a more meaningful measure of GDP over time. The Bureau of Eco-nomic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce releases GDP data annually in June. In 2012, BEA revised state-level GDP measures for 1997 through 2010.


Figure 25 Percent of Gross Domestic Product by Industry 2011

Table 25 Percent of Utah Gross Domestic Product by Industry

2.8% 4.

6%

14.1

%

9.2%

3.6%

22.1

%

10.5

%

6.9%

3.3%

3.1%

13.1

%

3.6%

3.5%

12.3

%

10.1

%

4.4%

20.1

%

12.7

%

8.8%

3.9%

2.5%

12.6

%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Ag

, Nat

Res

, & M

inin

g

Co

nst

ruc

tio

n

Ma

nu

fact

uri

ng

Tra

de,

Tra

ns.

, &

Uti

litie

s

Info

rma

tio

n

Fin

anc

ial A

ctiv

itie

s

Pro

& B

us

Ser

vic

es

Ed

& H

eal

th S

erv

ices

Lei

su

re &

Ho

spit

alit

y

Oth

er S

erv

ice

s

Go

vern

men

t

Utah U.S.


NAICS Industry 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

11,21 Ag., Nat. Resources, and Mining 1.8% 1.9% 2.2% 2.7% 2.8% 2.9% 3.1% 2.4% 2.5% 2.8%23 Construction 5.4 5.2 5.5 6.0 6.6 6.9 6.0 5.1 4.7 4.631-33 Manufacturing 10.6 11.0 11.3 11.4 11.9 12.0 11.1 12.7 13.8 14.122,42-49 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 10.2 10.1 10.5 10.3 10.1 10.1 9.7 9.4 9.1 9.251 Information 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.3 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.652,53 Financial Activities 22.0 21.8 20.1 20.1 20.3 20.5 22.7 22.3 22.7 22.154-56 Professional and Business Services 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.4 10.5 10.7 10.8 10.4 10.4 10.561,62 Education and Health Services 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.5 6.3 6.5 7.1 7.0 6.971,72 Leisure and Hospitality 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.381 Other Services 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.192 Government 14.4 14.6 14.3 14.0 13.5 13.1 13.3 13.9 13.3 13.1

Notes: 1. In October of 2006, BEA renamed the gross state product (GSP) series to gross domestic product (GDP) by state. 2. In June of 2012, BEA revised estimates of GDP for 1997 through 2011.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis


Tabl

e 26

U

tah

Nom

inal

Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct b

y In

dust

ry

Mill

ions

of C

urre

nt D

olla

rs20

11P

erce

nt

Per

cent

P

erce

nt o

f C

hang

eC

hang

eN

AIC

SIn

dust

ry20

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

11To

tal

2009

-201

020

10-2

011

Uta

h To

tal G

ross

Dom

estic

Pro

duct

$7

7,76

0$8

2,46

3$9

0,61

6$1

00,2

21$1

08,4

74$1

13,7

89$1

12,3

00$1

19,2

31$1

24,4

8310

0.0%

6.2%

4.4%

Priv

ate

indu

strie

s66

,439

70,6

9177

,909

86,6

7594

,252

98,6

0496

,689

103,

370

108,

192

86.9

6.9

4.7

11

Agr

icul

ture

,For

estr

y, F

ishi

ng,

and

Hun

ting

487

637

593

484

570

598

376

559

647

0.5

48.7

15.7

21

Min

ing

984

1,20

41,

867

2,29

22,

534

2,89

92,

321

2,43

12,

845

2.3

4.7

17.0

22

Util

ities

1,01

31,

127

1,15

41,

343

1,42

01,

502

1,50

71,

570

1,46

41.

24.

2-6

.823

C

onst

ruct

ion

4,08

24,

559

5,48

06,

643

7,44

56,

826

5,73

65,

555

5,70

54.

6-3

.22.

731

-33

M

anuf

actu

ring

8,55

99,

350

10,3

4111

,916

12,9

7112

,613

14,2

0616

,475

17,6

0814

.116

.06.

942

W

hole

sale

Tra

de3,

890

4,26

34,

609

4,98

65,

455

5,54

95,

204

5,27

35,

826

4.7

1.3

10.5

44-4

5

Ret

ail T

rade

6,10

36,

577

6,92

97,

694

8,30

38,

074

7,84

08,

205

8,42

76.

84.

72.

748

-49

T

rans

port

atio

n an

d W

areh

ousi

ng,

excl

udin

g P

osta

l Ser

vice

2,94

63,

231

3,59

43,

801

4,11

74,

041

3,85

33,

995

4,15

63.

33.

74.

051

In

form

atio

n3,

028

3,41

73,

854

3,67

23,

736

3,79

63,

873

3,99

34,

468

3.6

3.1

11.9

52

Fin

ance

and

Insu

ranc

e7,

795

7,46

88,

239

8,98

79,

270

11,5

2311

,262

13,9

2113

,938

11.2

23.6

0.1

53

Rea

l Est

ate,

Ren

tal,

and

Leas

ing

9,14

49,

068

9,95

811

,311

12,9

3714

,325

13,8

0613

,168

13,5

7110

.9-4

.63.

154

P

rofe

ssio

nal a

nd T

echn

ical

Ser

vice

s4,

479

4,99

95,

426

6,14

26,

772

7,33

26,

986

7,28

17,

806

6.3

4.2

7.2

55

Man

agem

ent

of C

ompa

nies

and

Ent

erpr

ises

1,37

41,

351

1,45

21,

595

1,72

61,

792

1,76

01,

885

1,84

51.

57.

1-2

.156

A

dmin

istr

ativ

e an

d W

aste

Ser

vice

s2,

029

2,21

92,

511

2,77

63,

160

3,15

92,

959

3,19

83,

424

2.8

8.1

7.1

61

Edu

catio

nal S

ervi

ces

830

931

1,01

41,

124

1,21

21,

309

1,38

21,

479

1,54

51.

27.

04.

562

H

ealth

Car

e an

d S

ocia

l Ass

ista

nce

4,20

24,

519

4,87

35,

355

5,66

66,

127

6,55

56,

851

7,01

95.

64.

52.

571

A

rts,

Ent

erta

inm

ent,

and

Rec

reat

ion

602

657

700

806

847

786

796

881

936

0.8

10.7

6.2

72

Acc

omm

odat

ion

and

Foo

d S

ervi

ces

2,14

92,

287

2,47

02,

699

2,90

72,

913

2,74

92,

946

3,12

92.

57.

26.

281

O

ther

Ser

vice

s, e

xcep

t G

over

nmen

t2,

742

2,82

72,

844

3,05

03,

204

3,43

93,

518

3,70

53,

831

3.1

5.3

3.4

92 G

over

nmen

t11

,322

11,7

7212

,707

13,5

4614

,222

15,1

8515

,610

15,8

6116

,292

13.1

1.6

2.7

F

eder

al C

ivili

an2,

888

3,01

93,

226

3,38

93,

546

3,58

83,

710

3,83

0na

nana

na

Fed

eral

Mili

tary

894

946

1,05

21,

038

1,05

51,

103

1,20

91,

214

nana

nana

S

tate

and

Loc

al7,

540

7,80

88,

429

9,11

99,

621

10,4

9310

,691

10,8

17na

nana

na

Not

es:

1.

In O

ctob

er o

f 200

6, B

EA

ren

amed

the

gro

ss s

tate

pro

duct

(G

SP

) se

ries

to g

ross

dom

estic

pro

duct

(G

DP

) by

sta

te.

2.

In J

une

of 2

012,

BE

A r

evis

ed e

stim

ates

of G

DP

for

1997

thr

ough

201

1.

Sou

rce:

U.S

. B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis


Tabl

e 27

U

tah

Rea

l Gro

ss D

omes

tic P

rodu

ct b

y In

dust

ry

Mill

ions

of C

hain

ed 2

005

Dol

lars

2011

Per

cent

P

erce

nt

Per

cent

of

Cha

nge

Cha

nge

NA

ICS

Indu

stry

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Tota

l20

09-2

010

2010

-201

1

Uta

h To

tal G

ross

Dom

estic

Pro

duct

$83,

250

$85,

683

$90,

616

$96,

540

$101

,299

$103

,861

$101

,849

$106

,166

$108

,329

100.

0%4.

2%2.

0%

Priv

ate

indu

strie

s70

,823

73,3

5277

,909

83,5

8488

,316

90,4

5388

,399

92,8

2494

,883

87.6

5.0

2.2

11

Agr

icul

ture

, F

ores

try,

Fis

hing

, an

d H

untin

g48

453

859

351

046

147

838

249

043

60.

428

.3-1

1.0

21

Min

ing

1,59

71,

665

1,86

71,

965

1,97

31,

888

2,07

01,

992

2,08

41.

9-3

.84.

622

U

tiliti

es1,

097

1,17

01,

154

1,17

81,

223

1,30

61,

158

1,21

51,

123

1.0

4.9

-7.6

23

Con

stru

ctio

n4,

901

5,09

65,

480

6,06

26,

390

5,82

44,

829

4,79

74,

830

4.5

-0.7

0.7

31-3

3

Man

ufac

turin

g8,

950

9,70

910

,341

11,4

2612

,303

11,9

1614

,051

15,5

5715

,828

14.6

10.7

1.7

42

Who

lesa

le T

rade

4,15

34,

472

4,60

94,

840

5,26

35,

248

4,56

24,

629

4,98

64.

61.

57.

744

-45

R

etai

l Tra

de6,

508

6,78

96,

929

7,51

98,

026

7,69

97,

396

8,05

88,

144

7.5

9.0

1.1

48-4

9

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

and

War

ehou

sing

, ex

clud

ing

Pos

tal S

ervi

ce2,

943

3,24

83,

594

3,69

83,

944

3,79

73,

352

3,52

03,

521

3.3

5.0

0.0

51

Info

rmat

ion

2,90

13,

345

3,85

43,

682

3,77

43,

877

3,93

54,

147

4,60

54.

35.

411

.052

F

inan

ce a

nd In

sura

nce

8,00

17,

538

8,23

98,

993

9,13

410

,992

10,7

6412

,228

12,5

0011

.513

.62.

253

R

eal E

stat

e, R

enta

l, an

d Le

asin

g9,

604

9,29

99,

958

10,9

5412

,274

13,2

3712

,579

12,1

2012

,240

11.3

-3.6

1.0

54

Pro

fess

iona

l and

Tec

hnic

al S

ervi

ces

4,69

85,

143

5,42

65,

926

6,26

76,

681

6,32

76,

548

6,90

06.

43.

55.

455

M

anag

emen

t of

Com

pani

es a

nd E

nter

pris

es1,

614

1,47

01,

452

1,49

91,

455

1,50

81,

530

1,47

91,

379

1.3

-3.3

-6.8

56

Adm

inis

trat

ive

and

Was

te S

ervi

ces

2,09

02,

230

2,51

12,

706

2,98

22,

997

2,69

52,

894

3,06

22.

87.

45.

861

E

duca

tiona

l Ser

vice

s94

299

11,

014

1,05

71,

077

1,11

21,

114

1,14

81,

144

1.1

3.1

-0.3

62

Hea

lth C

are

and

Soc

ial A

ssis

tanc

e4,

475

4,65

44,

873

5,22

15,

305

5,62

15,

803

5,94

56,

020

5.6

2.4

1.3

71

Art

s, E

nter

tain

men

t, a

nd R

ecre

atio

n63

067

370

078

680

272

872

379

783

50.

810

.24.

872

A

ccom

mod

atio

n an

d F

ood

Ser

vice

s2,

287

2,36

92,

470

2,62

12,

708

2,62

72,

366

2,55

42,

644

2.4

7.9

3.5

81

Oth

er S

ervi

ces,

exc

ept

Gov

ernm

ent

2,98

52,

962

2,84

42,

929

2,96

63,

059

2,98

63,

066

3,06

32.

82.

7-0

.1

92 G

over

nmen

t12

,437

12,3

3212

,707

12,9

5812

,995

13,4

1813

,445

13,3

7713

,492

12.5

-0.5

0.9

F

eder

al C

ivili

an3,

218

3,14

03,

226

3,25

63,

274

3,25

73,

301

3,28

6na

na-0

.5na

F

eder

al M

ilita

ry1,

041

1,03

01,

052

973

930

942

1,03

21,

013

nana

-1.8

na

Sta

te a

nd L

ocal

8,17

98,

162

8,42

98,

731

8,79

39,

219

9,11

39,

079

nana

-0.4

na

Not

es:

1.

In O

ctob

er o

f 200

6, B

EA

ren

amed

the

gro

ss s

tate

pro

duct

(G

SP

) se

ries

to g

ross

dom

estic

pro

duct

(G

DP

) by

sta

te.

2.

In J

une

of 2

012,

BE

A r

evis

ed e

stim

ates

of G

DP

for

1997

thr

ough

201

0.

Sou

rce:

U.S

. B

urea

u of

Eco

nom

ic A

naly

sis


Table 28 Nominal GDP by State (Millions of Current Dollars)

Millions of Current Dollars 2011 Percent Percent of Change

Rank State 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 2010-2011

26 Alabama $130,862 $141,974 $150,968 $159,059 $165,665 $170,203 $164,753 $170,219 $173,122 1.2% 1.7%45 Alaska 30,886 34,367 37,774 41,782 44,540 49,809 45,260 47,713 51,376 0.3% 7.7%20 Arizona 189,060 201,006 222,569 246,099 259,157 261,128 245,664 249,824 258,447 1.7% 3.5%35 Arkansas 78,043 83,806 88,501 93,792 97,470 100,369 98,879 102,235 105,846 0.7% 3.5%1 California 1,461,072 1,569,816 1,688,949 1,798,197 1,870,916 1,900,463 1,828,836 1,877,568 1,958,904 13.1% 4.3%

19 Colorado 192,040 201,564 217,329 230,236 242,633 252,487 244,422 253,101 264,308 1.8% 4.4%24 Connecticut 173,915 187,545 196,307 209,487 221,133 219,449 213,534 221,347 230,090 1.5% 3.9%41 Delaware 47,346 50,575 54,422 56,262 59,592 57,974 60,148 64,010 65,755 0.4% 2.7%34 District of Columbia 71,867 77,737 82,488 86,736 91,896 96,792 98,272 103,546 107,593 0.7% 3.9%4 Florida 574,382 621,417 681,225 731,467 760,936 748,117 726,184 736,065 754,255 5.0% 2.5%

11 Georgia 324,847 342,863 363,177 380,530 399,579 404,335 391,485 403,230 418,943 2.8% 3.9%39 Hawaii 48,095 52,290 56,901 60,993 64,070 65,978 64,251 65,599 66,991 0.4% 2.1%43 Idaho 39,479 44,069 48,683 50,509 54,273 55,143 53,683 56,038 57,927 0.4% 3.4%5 Illinois 518,569 545,591 568,114 600,668 626,611 631,962 623,128 646,794 670,727 4.5% 3.7%

17 Indiana 220,228 231,762 239,321 248,630 261,755 260,971 250,562 267,277 278,128 1.9% 4.1%30 Iowa 104,593 115,581 119,998 124,057 134,053 133,910 133,134 140,945 148,986 1.0% 5.7%31 Kansas 96,585 99,733 104,869 111,658 120,599 124,330 121,589 126,074 130,923 0.9% 3.8%28 Kentucky 125,393 131,701 138,772 146,409 150,487 153,570 151,994 159,350 164,799 1.1% 3.4%23 Louisiana 155,999 171,461 196,917 204,437 207,312 213,970 202,342 232,394 247,720 1.7% 6.6%44 Maine 41,510 44,352 45,520 47,594 49,065 49,500 50,160 50,674 51,585 0.3% 1.8%15 Maryland 216,607 231,963 247,241 259,792 271,985 281,112 283,644 293,349 301,100 2.0% 2.6%12 Massachusetts 297,692 310,341 323,314 337,483 352,378 361,716 360,574 377,846 391,771 2.6% 3.7%13 Michigan 362,652 365,609 375,753 376,208 386,591 368,963 350,847 368,371 385,248 2.6% 4.6%16 Minnesota 212,506 227,091 237,813 245,026 253,374 262,105 257,479 270,792 281,712 1.9% 4.0%36 Mississippi 73,842 77,539 81,360 85,854 92,107 95,461 92,167 95,480 97,810 0.7% 2.4%22 Missouri 199,921 208,375 216,336 223,721 232,959 241,406 237,364 243,386 249,525 1.7% 2.5%49 Montana 25,682 27,831 30,054 32,232 35,085 35,802 34,856 36,540 37,990 0.3% 4.0%37 Nebraska 66,345 69,572 72,505 76,549 82,135 85,181 85,874 90,072 94,160 0.6% 4.5%32 Nevada 89,186 100,663 114,478 123,754 133,185 131,976 124,536 126,188 130,366 0.9% 3.3%42 New Hampshire 48,768 51,335 53,693 56,103 57,868 58,473 58,967 61,636 63,556 0.4% 3.1%7 New Jersey 392,509 410,790 430,246 454,701 471,372 482,099 470,358 480,446 486,989 3.3% 1.4%

38 New Mexico 57,906 64,196 67,763 71,426 74,356 77,117 74,736 77,095 79,414 0.5% 3.0%3 New York 842,678 891,462 959,867 1,030,373 1,076,255 1,079,719 1,072,311 1,128,823 1,157,969 7.7% 2.6%9 North Carolina 311,088 327,343 354,664 378,241 396,740 407,360 411,495 424,562 439,862 2.9% 3.6%

47 North Dakota 22,328 23,333 24,670 26,063 28,549 31,769 31,997 35,654 40,328 0.3% 13.1%8 Ohio 409,680 428,172 444,083 452,884 467,138 465,527 450,991 466,930 483,962 3.2% 3.6%

29 Oklahoma 104,732 112,298 120,529 132,176 140,378 153,223 140,661 147,587 154,966 1.0% 5.0%25 Oregon 124,566 137,290 143,429 159,899 167,088 174,990 171,601 185,211 194,742 1.3% 5.1%6 Pennsylvania 441,510 461,721 482,200 506,362 531,098 544,712 537,223 558,918 578,839 3.9% 3.6%

46 Rhode Island 40,664 42,925 44,189 46,450 47,293 47,231 47,738 48,840 50,091 0.3% 2.6%27 South Carolina 130,500 134,793 141,877 149,104 157,712 159,203 156,644 160,374 165,785 1.1% 3.4%48 South Dakota 28,922 30,569 31,549 32,304 34,885 37,266 37,022 38,215 40,117 0.3% 5.0%18 Tennessee 200,455 213,537 224,288 236,313 242,220 247,961 244,995 256,194 266,527 1.8% 4.0%2 Texas 824,489 903,679 968,553 1,054,414 1,147,404 1,209,267 1,129,537 1,222,904 1,308,132 8.7% 7.0%

33 Utah 77,760 82,463 90,616 100,221 108,474 113,789 112,300 119,231 124,483 0.8% 4.4%51 Vermont 20,537 21,876 22,743 23,613 24,043 24,445 24,247 25,264 25,905 0.2% 2.5%10 Virginia 307,377 329,557 356,370 374,566 389,570 397,894 404,955 419,365 428,909 2.9% 2.3%14 Washington 247,056 257,979 279,333 300,145 325,118 333,720 331,861 339,829 355,083 2.4% 4.5%40 West Virginia 45,894 48,691 51,857 55,205 56,864 58,227 59,601 61,934 66,821 0.4% 7.9%21 Wisconsin 198,097 208,904 218,689 228,691 236,522 236,094 235,681 245,720 254,818 1.7% 3.7%50 Wyoming 21,107 23,301 26,250 30,767 33,708 38,853 34,157 35,845 37,617 0.3% 4.9%

United States 11,067,829 11,774,410 12,539,116 13,289,235 13,936,199 14,193,120 13,834,700 14,416,601 14,981,020 100.0% 3.9%

Notes: 1. In October of 2006, BEA renamed the gross state product (GSP) series to gross domestic product (GDP) by state. 2. In June of 2012, BEA revised estimates of GDP by state for 1997 to 2010.



Table 29 Real GDP Growth by State

Millions of Chained 2005 Dollars 2011 Percent Percent of Change

Rank State 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 2010-2011

26 Alabama $140,020 $146,937 $150,968 $153,681 $155,388 $155,870 $148,074 $151,480 $150,330 1.1% -0.8%45 Alaska 36,288 38,179 37,774 39,836 40,694 41,039 44,030 43,591 44,702 0.3% 2.5%20 Arizona 199,895 207,289 222,569 238,371 243,950 241,134 221,254 223,655 227,098 1.7% 1.5%35 Arkansas 83,054 86,060 88,501 90,861 91,312 91,618 88,946 91,186 91,496 0.7% 0.3%1 California 1,549,596 1,620,772 1,688,949 1,745,433 1,763,450 1,756,115 1,673,333 1,701,912 1,735,360 13.2% 2.0%18 Colorado 205,386 209,357 217,329 223,154 228,087 230,987 224,593 229,928 234,308 1.8% 1.9%24 Connecticut 184,469 193,548 196,307 203,431 208,854 202,473 191,722 197,451 201,386 1.5% 2.0%40 Delaware 50,084 52,069 54,422 54,888 56,577 53,692 54,737 56,398 57,293 0.4% 1.6%34 District of Columbia 77,609 80,536 82,488 83,594 85,280 87,765 87,089 89,893 91,643 0.7% 1.9%4 Florida 610,448 641,330 681,225 707,896 714,630 689,445 651,982 657,717 661,091 5.0% 0.5%11 Georgia 343,372 352,510 363,177 369,241 377,492 373,862 350,590 359,590 365,809 2.8% 1.7%39 Hawaii 51,684 54,304 56,901 58,743 59,548 60,098 57,313 58,106 57,977 0.4% -0.2%43 Idaho 41,272 44,742 48,683 49,468 51,427 51,371 49,299 51,154 51,463 0.4% 0.6%5 Illinois 551,750 564,341 568,114 581,562 588,605 580,712 557,579 574,416 582,094 4.4% 1.3%17 Indiana 232,875 238,593 239,321 241,687 248,011 241,913 224,998 238,199 240,933 1.8% 1.1%30 Iowa 110,158 117,839 119,998 121,146 126,808 123,680 120,088 126,172 128,597 1.0% 1.9%31 Kansas 102,641 102,688 104,869 108,313 113,232 114,122 109,838 112,759 113,367 0.9% 0.5%28 Kentucky 133,652 135,963 138,772 141,782 141,240 140,681 134,784 140,498 141,266 1.1% 0.5%23 Louisiana 181,447 190,332 196,917 192,428 186,655 184,046 187,272 204,819 205,877 1.6% 0.5%44 Maine 44,224 45,797 45,520 46,076 46,168 45,572 44,801 44,980 44,821 0.3% -0.4%15 Maryland 230,719 239,617 247,241 251,229 255,351 258,729 254,540 262,041 264,373 2.0% 0.9%12 Massachusetts 313,816 319,654 323,314 327,936 333,320 335,809 327,154 341,164 348,577 2.7% 2.2%13 Michigan 378,506 374,234 375,753 367,428 367,668 345,605 314,558 329,968 337,427 2.6% 2.3%16 Minnesota 225,176 234,128 237,813 238,025 238,456 242,141 232,894 242,022 244,912 1.9% 1.2%36 Mississippi 79,180 80,371 81,360 82,863 85,955 87,128 83,116 84,933 84,272 0.6% -0.8%22 Missouri 211,791 214,474 216,336 217,124 219,288 222,177 211,630 216,017 216,099 1.6% 0.0%49 Montana 28,077 29,156 30,054 30,859 32,159 31,946 31,067 31,985 31,983 0.2% 0.0%37 Nebraska 70,242 71,045 72,505 74,442 76,862 77,702 77,045 79,772 79,889 0.6% 0.1%32 Nevada 95,930 104,852 114,478 119,150 123,719 119,826 110,779 111,161 112,503 0.9% 1.2%41 New Hampshire 51,452 52,891 53,693 54,494 54,819 54,456 53,428 55,734 56,572 0.4% 1.5%7 New Jersey 416,436 424,471 430,246 440,262 443,536 443,833 422,433 428,894 426,765 3.3% -0.5%38 New Mexico 63,267 67,681 67,763 69,232 69,668 69,047 69,554 70,369 70,497 0.5% 0.2%3 New York 893,888 919,254 959,867 999,329 1,009,642 987,442 963,681 1,005,324 1,016,350 7.8% 1.1%9 North Carolina 328,019 335,831 354,664 369,556 378,814 377,869 368,963 378,131 385,092 2.9% 1.8%48 North Dakota 23,958 24,017 24,670 25,249 26,397 28,624 29,209 31,833 34,262 0.3% 7.6%8 Ohio 433,751 441,568 444,083 439,506 440,825 430,097 403,586 414,388 418,881 3.2% 1.1%29 Oklahoma 116,483 119,736 120,529 126,888 129,795 134,407 130,231 132,782 134,146 1.0% 1.0%25 Oregon 129,136 139,511 143,429 157,687 162,889 170,182 164,533 177,807 186,228 1.4% 4.7%6 Pennsylvania 472,178 478,759 482,200 488,685 497,356 498,227 479,143 494,498 500,443 3.8% 1.2%46 Rhode Island 43,245 44,368 44,189 44,955 44,433 43,424 42,889 43,338 43,663 0.3% 0.7%27 South Carolina 138,516 139,239 141,877 143,904 147,956 146,164 138,622 141,616 143,278 1.1% 1.2%47 South Dakota 30,397 30,958 31,549 31,643 32,816 34,302 34,097 34,175 34,443 0.3% 0.8%19 Tennessee 210,833 219,259 224,288 230,346 230,203 230,791 219,956 229,606 233,997 1.8% 1.9%2 Texas 914,892 964,924 968,553 1,016,315 1,071,592 1,077,144 1,057,675 1,113,104 1,149,908 8.8% 3.3%33 Utah 83,250 85,683 90,616 96,540 101,299 103,861 101,849 106,166 108,329 0.8% 2.0%51 Vermont 21,604 22,438 22,743 23,010 22,821 22,772 21,963 22,857 22,968 0.2% 0.5%10 Virginia 326,171 339,818 356,370 363,185 366,846 366,445 363,755 374,695 375,747 2.9% 0.3%14 Washington 261,996 266,089 279,333 290,742 305,728 308,180 299,631 304,953 310,906 2.4% 2.0%42 West Virginia 50,570 51,433 51,857 52,592 52,207 51,591 51,876 53,352 55,765 0.4% 4.5%21 Wisconsin 209,205 214,738 218,689 222,351 223,788 218,801 210,851 219,249 221,741 1.7% 1.1%50 Wyoming 25,657 26,466 26,250 28,730 29,818 31,369 32,088 31,919 31,542 0.2% -1.2%

United States 11,809,034 12,199,532 12,539,116 12,875,816 13,103,341 13,016,791 12,527,057 12,918,931 13,108,674 100.0% 1.5%

Notes: 1. In October of 2006, BEA renamed the gross state product (GSP) series to gross domestic product (GDP) by state. 2. In June of 2011, BEA revised estimates of GDP by state for 1997 through 2011.


2012 Economic Report to the Governor 71 Utah Taxable Sales UT

Summary Retail Trade. Taxable sales from retail trade increased 6.7% in Utah to $24.5 billion in 2011, representing 55.3% of taxa-ble sales. During the first two quarters of 2012, Retail trade increased by 8.5% over the same period in 2011. This growth follows three consecutive years of decline as consumers re-duced spending due to a combination of increasing unem-ployment, declining wealth, and increasing credit restrictions. Retail Nondurable Goods. Nondurable goods sold by retailers are classified into the following sectors: general merchandise, food, apparel, eating and drinking, and miscellaneous shop-ping goods stores. Taxable sales from nondurable retail sales reached $18 billion in 2011, which accounts for 40.1% of all taxable sales. From 2010 to 2011, sales in this sector grew by 5.8%. Furthermore, the first two quarters of 2012 show an increase of 7.4% in nondurable goods retail sales over the same period of 2011. Retail Durable Goods. Retail durable goods are defined as those items that last three or more years. These goods are broadly associated with building and garden stores, furniture stores, and motor vehicle dealers. The sale and consumption of retail durable goods are usually impacted by job growth, cred-it market conditions, dealer incentives, and consumer confi-dence. Durable goods sales rebounded to a 9.2% increase in 2011 after three consecutive years of decline. These sales also show a further increase of 12.4% during the first two quarter of 2012, when compared to the same period of 2011. Business Investment and Utility Sales. This category comprised 23.1% of all taxable sales in 2011. Approximately 17.7% of all taxable sales occurred in the natural resources and mining, construction, manufacturing, and wholesale trade sectors. The service sectors of transportation, communica-tion, and public utilities comprised 5.4% of taxable sales. In 2011, taxable sales from mining purchases increased by

12.3% to $851 million and taxable manufacturing purchases increased by 7.1% to $2.2 billion. Growth in these sectors also increased during the second quarter of 2012 at 8.8% over the same period of 2011, where construction and wholesale posted the largest gains at 23.3% and 22.0% respectively. Taxable Services. The taxable services sector consists of consumer spending on amusement, personal, and financial services, tourist spending for Utah's hotels, resorts, and rental cars, and business and consumer spending on computers and equipment. This sector is driven by growth in wages and population, Salt Lake City International Airport arrivals and departures, and U.S. business spending on software and equipment. Taxable services related sales increased by 2.3% in 2011. It increased a further 4.1% during the first two quar-ter of 2012, when compared to the same period of 2011. Among the largest sectors, hotel and lodging, as well as real estate, rental & leasing grew by 14.2% and 2.5% respectively in 2011. The information sector declined by 0.2%.

Utah Taxable Sales

Overview Taxable sales are comprised of three major components: re-tail trade, business investments and utility taxable sales, and taxable services. In 2011, total taxable sales in Utah increased by 5.8% to $44.3 billion. This is the first year of positive growth after three consecutive years of decline. Furthermore, total taxable sales grew to $23.3 billion during the first two quarters of 2012, which is an 8.5% increase over the same period of 2011. Retail trade taxable sales business investment and utility taxa-ble sales grew by $10.2 billion in 2011, representing 23.1% of taxable sales. This sector grew by 9.5% during the first two quarters of 2012. Taxable services were $6.1 billion in 2011, representing 13.8% of taxable sales, an increase of 2.3% over 2010. Taxable services are expected to increase by another 3.2% in 2012.


Table 30 Utah Taxable Sales and Percent Change by Sector

Sectors 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011* 2012* 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12*

RETAIL TRADE $27,202 $24,802 $22,989 $24,523 $11,589 $12,607 -8.8% -7.3% 6.7% 8.8% NONDURABLES 18,484 17,636 16,975 17,957 8,390 9,011 -4.6% -3.7% 5.8% 7.4% General Merchandise 6,200 6,148 5,461 5,686 2,603 2,732 -0.8% -11.2% 4.1% 5.0% Clothing & Clothing Accessories 1,432 1,337 1,316 1,421 631 746 -6.6% -1.6% 8.0% 18.2% Food & Beverage Stores 3,578 3,417 3,364 3,485 1,646 1,733 -4.5% -1.6% 3.6% 5.3% Food Services & Drinking Places 3,114 2,966 3,111 3,324 1,628 1,732 -4.8% 4.9% 6.8% 6.4% Health & Personal Care 318 312 338 380 187 205 -1.9% 8.3% 12.4% 9.6% Gasoline Stations 838 780 815 900 426 457 -6.9% 4.5% 10.4% 7.3% Sporting Goods, Hobby, Books & Music 1,051 966 842 872 393 419 -8.1% -12.8% 3.6% 6.6% Nonstore & Miscellaneous 1,953 1,710 1,728 1,889 876 987 -12.4% 1.1% 9.3% 12.7% DURABLES 8,718 7,166 6,014 6,566 3,199 3,596 -17.8% -16.1% 9.2% 12.4% Motor Vehicle & Parts Dealers 4,293 3,461 3,505 3,989 1,941 2,228 -19.4% 1.3% 13.8% 14.8% Building & Garden 2,565 2,126 1,810 1,831 895 1,010 -17.1% -14.9% 1.2% 12.8% Furniture & Home Furnishings 912 725 699 746 363 358 -20.5% -3.6% 6.7% -1.4% Electronics & Appliances 948 854 809 859 412 444 -9.9% -5.3% 6.2% 7.8%BUSINESS INVESTMENT 11,014 8,804 9,358 10,246 4,924 5,357 -20.1% 6.3% 9.5% 8.8% Agriculture, Forestry Fishing & Hunting 11 11 13 14 8 8 0.0% 18.2% 7.7% 0.0% Mining 923 561 758 851 397 433 -39.2% 35.1% 12.3% 9.1% Construction 785 686 662 658 288 355 -12.6% -3.5% -0.6% 23.3% Manufacturing 2,635 2,079 2,082 2,230 1,008 1,095 -21.1% 0.1% 7.1% 8.6% Transportation & Warehousing 169 151 237 275 218 62 -10.7% 57.0% 16.0% -71.6% Utilities 1,853 1,858 1,990 2,100 1,083 1,059 0.3% 7.1% 5.5% -2.2% Wholesale Trade 4,638 3,458 3,616 4,118 1,922 2,345 -25.4% 4.6% 13.9% 22.0%SERVICES 6,627 5,867 5,966 6,106 3,065 3,192 -11.5% 1.7% 2.3% 4.1% Accomodation 1,046 900 1,018 1,163 605 653 -14.0% 13.1% 14.2% 7.9% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 498 451 474 450 226 245 -9.4% 5.1% -5.1% 8.4% Information 2,285 2,203 2,158 2,154 1,088 1,111 -3.6% -2.0% -0.2% 2.1% Health Care & Social Assistance 102 114 133 106 51 54 11.8% 16.7% -20.3% 5.9% Educational 176 153 205 219 100 109 -13.1% 34.0% 6.8% 9.0% Professional, Scientific & Technical 485 424 457 465 214 257 -12.6% 7.8% 1.8% 20.1% Management, Administration & Support 231 192 193 202 100 105 -16.9% 0.5% 4.7% 5.0% Finance & Insurance 309 279 237 229 114 110 -9.7% -15.1% -3.4% -3.5% Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 1,495 1,151 1,091 1,118 567 548 -23.0% -5.2% 2.5% -3.4%ALL OTHER 2,540 2,451 3,595 3,461 1,898 2,154 -3.5% 46.7% -3.7% 13.5%GRAND TOTAL TAXABLE SALES 47,383 41,924 41,908 44,336 21,476 23,310 -11.5% 0.0% 5.8% 8.5%

* first two quarters of that year

Source: Utah State Tax Commission

Millions of Dollars Percent Change


Table 31 Utah Taxable Sales by Component

Millions of DollarsBusiness Total

Calendar Retail Investment Taxable All TaxableYear Sales Purchases Services Other Sales

2008 $27,202 $11,014 $6,627 $2,540 $47,3832009 24,802 8,804 5,867 2,451 41,9242010 22,989 9,358 5,966 3,595 41,9082011 24,523 10,246 6,106 3,461 44,336

2012* 12,607 5,357 3,192 2,154 23,310

Percent ChangeBusiness Total

Calendar Retail Investment Taxable All TaxableYear Sales Purchases Services Other Sales

2009 -8.8 -20.1 -11.5 -3.5 -11.52010 -7.3 6.3 1.7 46.7 0.02011 6.7 9.5 2.3 -3.7 5.82012* 8.8 8.8 4.1 13.5 8.5

* first two quarters of that year



Tabl

e 32

U

tah

Tota

l Tax

able

Sal

es b

y C

ount

y

Per

cent

Cha

nge

Cou

nty

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2010

-201

1

Bea

ver

$78,

321,

295

$42,

100,

390

$61,

425,

176

$61,

934,

399

$84,

039,

641

$87,

012,

885

$77,

121,

460

$98,

944,

662

$101

,340

,130

2.4%

Box

Eld

er41

4,49

4,71

041

4,72

1,75

745

9,00

9,19

051

5,81

3,91

259

0,46

0,35

358

1,20

3,76

354

0,99

2,26

562

4,78

1,34

458

2,56

4,00

1-6

.8%

Cac

he1,

029,

987,

061

1,10

3,94

0,83

61,

163,

228,

307

1,27

5,90

6,44

81,

375,

409,

973

1,52

0,98

2,61

91,

409,

836,

291

1,32

4,00

9,94

61,

338,

547,

784

1.1%

Car

bon

333,

785,

502

379,

035,

713

417,

165,

129

478,

220,

656

487,

708,

610

519,

220,

376

431,

305,

205

433,

494,

176

454,

296,

085

4.8%

Dag

gett

11,6

92,3

228,

850,

106

16,2

84,5

6615

,462

,461

11,8

12,2

8617

,222

,522

14,5

37,3

4515

,553

,190

13,1

80,0

77-1

5.3%

Dav

is2,

795,

943,

681

3,02

6,29

3,50

33,

268,

243,

050

3,72

3,49

3,74

64,

053,

067,

525

4,00

7,10

3,97

53,

744,

091,

608

3,60

0,21

3,68

23,

756,

879,

517

4.4%

Duc

hesn

e15

7,00

9,68

221

7,72

3,68

728

0,79

1,21

136

4,15

0,26

741

1,65

5,67

257

9,93

8,53

040

4,95

2,59

847

7,07

4,58

261

3,19

8,22

228

.5%

Em

ery

104,

310,

439

128,

437,

780

139,

290,

716

182,

235,

883

167,

171,

754

159,

442,

989

161,

545,

008

188,

970,

181

177,

161,

042

-6.2

%G

arfie

ld68

,752

,485

77,6

48,6

6678

,381

,924

83,5

37,8

4195

,277

,105

102,

916,

955

96,7

27,0

3410

2,81

9,55

382

,877

,525

-19.

4%G

rand

163,

637,

016

180,

031,

694

198,

213,

638

227,

655,

128

255,

263,

040

300,

091,

281

256,

451,

127

263,

674,

759

277,

698,

141

5.3%

Iron

480,

123,

467

456,

541,

704

592,

783,

355

673,

887,

071

693,

355,

966

669,

183,

340

574,

949,

664

552,

242,

049

568,

805,

512

3.0%

Juab

99,1

88,6

2481

,415

,135

164,

387,

520

77,7

72,4

8598

,407

,073

88,6

25,9

9180

,340

,823

86,7

87,7

6599

,979

,457

15.2

%K

ane

97,5

04,7

2510

0,71

5,90

911

4,08

5,03

413

2,16

3,95

413

1,03

9,07

413

7,82

2,57

311

8,36

0,91

614

5,29

2,07

614

9,25

8,32

72.

7%M

illar

d12

8,82

2,92

013

5,39

8,48

013

6,95

9,49

115

2,38

9,88

011

9,79

6,14

314

9,00

5,85

213

9,34

6,50

817

5,57

8,20

216

6,79

3,38

5-5

.0%

Mor

gan

49,3

00,1

1754

,461

,648

57,5

58,8

6566

,137

,137

66,5

28,0

2476

,039

,674

68,9

14,9

8968

,410

,045

73,2

56,1

557.

1%P

iute

6,61

7,57

66,

186,

763

6,33

9,85

27,

837,

442

9,15

1,05

88,

099,

897

7,54

6,90

17,

360,

115

8,26

8,28

012

.3%

Ric

h18

,373

,609

18,4

82,4

3920

,638

,560

24,3

30,1

7828

,891

,143

30,3

42,0

5626

,484

,892

41,2

59,3

3410

2,42

3,70

914

8.2%

Sal

t La

ke15

,445

,006

,387

16,5

76,5

88,1

1218

,009

,014

,948

20,3

28,8

14,0

9521

,634

,261

,887

20,4

77,8

75,2

5818

,284

,173

,856

18,7

98,6

66,6

7519

,879

,595

,923

5.8%

San

Jua

n85

,238

,249

86,0

02,9

1310

3,02

5,68

013

3,02

9,78

519

3,33

1,56

618

3,97

1,53

614

1,93

3,61

318

0,39

3,45

620

9,28

7,28

116

.0%

San

pete

162,

116,

042

162,

631,

076

174,

115,

526

199,

437,

203

220,

369,

051

214,

511,

292

188,

030,

747

183,

994,

508

194,

290,

151

5.6%

Sev

ier

225,

887,

000

252,

351,

206

289,

358,

111

365,

054,

447

371,

677,

903

371,

207,

426

319,

593,

069

301,

380,

896

314,

235,

010

4.3%

Sum

mit

854,

703,

303

972,

492,

127

1,11

3,46

4,84

61,

271,

522,

187

1,35

0,09

4,63

01,

343,

519,

374

1,10

9,85

5,17

01,

192,

246,

090

1,30

9,98

1,79

19.

9%To

oele

325,

233,

649

418,

310,

455

446,

493,

203

559,

612,

040

548,

127,

447

594,

206,

330

561,

088,

668

580,

790,

147

602,

843,

683

3.8%

Uin

tah

484,

733,

738

663,

674,

391

867,

250,

044

1,17

4,89

4,86

51,

393,

281,

082

1,82

3,32

1,91

01,

089,

068,

922

1,16

7,29

0,09

81,

370,

791,

915

17.4

%U

tah

4,43

3,22

8,37

54,

791,

033,

296

5,40

9,23

3,06

36,

409,

994,

035

6,84

7,70

7,78

37,

161,

136,

724

6,42

5,88

0,99

95,

832,

271,

474

6,25

0,51

1,94

97.

2%W

asat

ch18

4,21

1,49

619

0,08

0,77

822

4,40

6,54

327

4,30

5,45

031

8,42

5,42

430

9,67

4,94

224

5,12

4,51

727

2,54

6,76

929

3,66

1,44

17.

7%W

ashi

ngto

n1,

626,

273,

410

1,95

8,52

8,25

62,

406,

220,

140

2,68

0,27

1,40

82,

615,

119,

595

2,58

2,02

5,98

22,

240,

397,

413

2,02

7,18

2,62

22,

130,

979,

356

5.1%

Way

ne27

,607

,530

30,3

48,4

4529

,232

,626

33,7

02,4

9633

,410

,919

33,0

67,9

2430

,510

,539

32,5

88,3

1933

,212

,836

1.9%

Web

er2,

599,

184,

450

2,75

8,76

8,92

82,

899,

244,

314

3,25

3,50

4,60

03,

478,

066,

932

3,31

9,14

6,03

03,

234,

204,

967

3,09

4,88

2,05

63,

161,

296,

604

2.1%

Out

-of-S

tate

Use

Tax

68,7

53,3

0218

,078

,794

95,1

46,3

8048

,708

,952

7,12

5,01

4-6

4,71

6,79

9-9

9,14

4,63

636

,869

,452

18,3

43,5

33-5

0.2%

* fir

st t

wo

quar

ters

of t

hat

year

Sou

rce:

Uta

h S

tate

Tax

Com

mis

sion

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 75 Tax Collections UT

Fiscal Year 2012: Bouncing Back Collections of unrestricted revenue grew $200.8 million in FY2012 to $4,859.3 million, a 4.3% increase. The final FY2012 forecast predicted growth of $115.6 million to $4,774.1 million, a 2.5% increase. The forecast underestimat-ed growth by 1.8%, resulting in an $85.2 million revenue sur-plus. All collections grew $386.1 million, a 7.1% increase. The General Fund grew by $31.2 million, only 16% of unre-stricted growth. The Sales and Use Tax fell by $18.9 million, a 1.2% decrease. This was due to the restoration of an ear-mark of sales and use tax to transportation. Total Sales and Use Tax collections grew $124.4 million. The Cable/Satellite Excise Tax, Liquor Profits, and Insurance Premium Tax all rebounded with growth above 10%. The Beer, Cigarette, and Tobacco Tax remained flat. All other general fund collec-tions increased due to over a $20 million settlement with banks regarding bad mortgage practices. Severance Taxes grew only modestly, double digit growth early in the fiscal slowed considerably by year end.

The Education Fund grew by $169.6 million, 84% of unre-stricted growth. Individual Income Tax grew $161.3 million, continuing strong growth with a 7.1% increase. The source of much of the growth was from wage factors: withholding grew to $2,151.8 million, a 5.7% increase; final payments re-mained steady at $689.0 million, a 2.9% increase; refunds continued to fall to $381.4 million, a 6.2% decline. After growing extremely slowly through most of the fiscal year, corporate collections recovered at year end to $268.9 million, an increase of $8.2 million or 3.1%. Mineral Production Withholding grew $1.7 million, a 6.2% increase. Other col-lections fell $1.4 million, a 5.4% decrease due to lower es-cheat payments. Legislation Impacting Tax Collections Overall collections were not significantly impacted by policy changes in FY2012. There were significant shifts between unrestricted and restricted sales tax due to bills passed in the 2010 General Legislative Session that temporarily shifted earmarked sales tax revenue from the Transportation Fund to the General Fund to help dampen the effects of a sharp fall in revenue due to the recession. Significant policy changes impacting the future distribution of tax collections were enacted in the 2011 General Legislative Session. Under SB229, Transportation Funding Revisions, in addition to the planned sales tax earmarks for transportation projects. Starting in FY2013, 30% of the sales tax growth from FY2011 will be diverted to transportation until the cur-rent 8.3% share earmark reaches 17.0%. This will likely take five or more years to take effect, during which time, transpor-tation funding from sales tax will exceed that collected from all gas taxes and fees in the Transportation Fund. The 2012 General Legislative Session largely shifted some tax burdens. Sales tax exemptions were enacted for life science businesses, while some businesses were required to start col-lecting sales tax. Several income tax credits were restored or enacted regarding: recycling zones, dependents with disabili-ties, employing veterans. Fiscal Year 2004: Recovery Collections grew by $191.8 million in FY2004 to $3,634.9 million, a 5.6% increase. The final FY2004 forecast predicted growth of $95.6 million to $3,543.6 million, a 2.8% increase. This resulted in a $91.3 million revenue surplus, underesti-mating growth by 2.8%. Fiscal Year 2005: Strong Growth Collections grew by $448.1 million in FY2005 to $4,083.0 million, a 12.3% increase. The final FY2005 forecast predict-ed growth of $236.5 million to $3,912.4 million, a 6.4% in-crease. This resulted in a $170.6 million revenue surplus, underestimating growth by 5.9%.

Tax Collections

Collections of free revenue in the General and Education Funds grew in FY2012 to $4,859.3 million, a 4.3% increase. This growth was restrained by policy changes from restoring sales tax earmarks to transportation. Total sales tax earmarks grew from $189.2 million in FY2011 to $332.4 million in FY2012. Collections including earmarks have grown faster than 7% for two consecutive years after falling for three con-secutive years following the recession. Moderate economic growth is generating more robust growth in tax collections. Strong sales of motor vehicles and increasing business invest-ment translated into $124 million more in sales tax collec-tions. Strong wage growth and continued business profits in 2011 pushed income tax up $169 million. The Transporta-tion Fund remained stable garnering $436 million. Mineral Lease payments from mining activity on federal lands in-creased $41 million to $194 million. All collections grew $386 million or 7.1% from $5,436 million to $5,822 million, reaching 95% of the peak FY2007 collections of $6,163 mil-lion. The final forecast for FY2012 was exceeded by $85.2 million, 1.8% higher growth than expected. The outlook for FY2013 tax collections appears attainable even with lower projected global and U.S. economic growth than was assumed in the 2012 General Legislative Session forecast. This will depend upon continued moderate but improving economic growth while avoiding any catastrophic shocks. In particular possible catastrophes would be not resolving the U.S. “fiscal cliff”, an implosion of the European financial system, and much slow-er economic growth in the emerging world, particularly Chi-na. Revisions to the revenue forecasts will be made with the release of the Governor’s FY2013 Budget Recommendation.


Fiscal Year 2006: Unprecedented Growth Collections grew by $781.2 million in FY2006 to $4,864.2 million, a 19.1% increase. The final FY2006 forecast predict-ed growth of $390.5 million to $4,473.5 million, a 9.6% in-crease. This resulted in a $390.7 million revenue surplus, underestimating growth by 9.5%. Fiscal Year 2007: Slowdown Collections grew by $443.5 million in FY2007 to $5,307.7 million, a 9.1% increase. The final FY2007 forecast predicted growth of $186.9 million to $5,051.2 million, a 3.8% increase. This resulted in a $256.5 million revenue surplus, underesti-mating growth by 5.3%. Fiscal Year 2008: Recession Collections fell by $94.8 million in FY2008 to $5,212.9 mil-lion, a 1.8% decline. The final FY2008 forecast predicted a fall of $13.9 million to $5,293.9 million, a 0.3% decline. This resulted in an $81.0 million revenue deficit, underestimating the decline in revenue by 1.5%. The General Fund declined $125.9 million, more than the total decline. The Sales and Use Tax fell $118.4 million, a 6.4% decline. The Education Fund grew $31.0 million, a 1.0% increase. The Individual Income Tax grew $37.5 mil-lion, a 1.5% increase. Corporate collections fell $9.1 million, a 2.2% fall. Fiscal Year 2009: Recession Collections fell by $651.5 million in FY2009 to $4,561.4 mil-lion, a record 12.5% decline. The final FY2009 forecast pre-dicted a fall of $683.9 million to $4,529.0 million, a 13.1% decline. This resulted in a $32.4 million revenue surplus, overestimating the decline in revenue by 0.6%. The General Fund declined $230.5 million, 35% of the total decline. The Sales and Use Tax fell $191.9 million, an 11% decline. The Education Fund declined $421.0 million, 65% of the total decline. The Individual Income Tax fell $279.3 million, a 10.7% decline. Corporate collections fell $149.6 million, a 36.9% decline. Fiscal Year 2010: Reaching Bottom Collections fell by $367.8 million in FY2010 to $4,193.6 mil-lion, an 8.1% decline. The final FY2010 forecast predicted a fall of $341.3 million to $4,220.1 million, a 7.5% decline. This resulted in a $26.5 million revenue deficit, underestimat-ing the decline in revenue by 0.6%. The General Fund declined $153.3 million, 42% of the total decline. The Sales and Use Tax fell $144.8 million, a 9.4% decline. The Education Fund declined $214.6 million, 58% of the total decline. The Individual Income Tax fell $215.0 million, a 9.3% decline.

Fiscal Year 2011: Recovery Collections grew by $464.9 million in FY2011 to $4,658.5 million, an 11.1% increase. The final FY2011 forecast pre-dicted growth of $368.0 million to $4,560.8 million, an 8.8% increase. The forecast underestimated growth by 2.3%, re-sulting in a $97.7 million revenue surplus. The General Fund grew by $264.9 million, 57% of total growth. The Beer, Cigarette, and Tobacco Tax grew $66.8 million, more than doubling from prior year collections due to a doubling of the tax rate. The Education Fund grew by $200.0 million, 43% of total growth. Individual Income Tax grew $193.6 million, recovering sharply with a 9.2% increase.


Figure 26 Inflation-Adjusted Percentage Change in Unrestricted General and Education Fund Revenue

Figure 27 Actual and Inflation-Adjusted Unrestricted Revenue Surplus/Deficit for the General and Education Fund

8.3

13.9

-3.6

3.7

7.8

10.0

7.06.46.2

-1.6

3.6

-3.6

19.3

5.7

0.21.6

8.8

3.6

1.2 0.42.8

5.0

9.78.7 7.4

6.04.8

2.8

8.1

0.8

-7.2

-1.1

3.2

8.9

15.2

5.8

-4.1

-14.1

-8.7

9.0

2.2

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2519

72

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Per

cen

t C

han

ge

Fiscal Years

The annual average rate of growth in inflation-adjusted unrestricted revenues (GDP Deflator) from FY1971 to FY2012 was 3.8%.



-$200

-$100

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Mill

ion

s o

f D

olla

rs

Fiscal Years

2012 Real (GDP Deflator) Nominal


Figure 28 Sales Tax, Income Tax, and All Other Unrestricted Revenues as a Percent of Total State Unrestricted Revenues

Figure 29 IRS Wage and Non-Wage Income as a Percent of Total Taxable Income



*The "Others" category includes unrestricted fines and fees, investment income, liquor profits, mineral lease, school land income (ended in fiscal 1988), federal revenue sharing (ended in fiscal 1982), corporate, gross receipts, severance, beer, cigarette, insurance, inheritance and motor fuels taxes.

0

10

20

30

40

5019

80

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Per

cen

t o

f T

ota

l Rev

en

ues

Fiscal Years

Others Sales Income

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Wag

e P

ercen

tN

on

-Wa

ge

Per

cen

t

Calendar Years

Non-Wage Income Wage Income


Figure 30 FY2012 Forecast Percent Growth Error: Contribution to $85.2 million Revenue Surplus


0.4%

-0.1%

0.7%

0.5%

1.5%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

1.8%

-0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%

Escheats & Other

Mineral Production Withholding

Corporate Tax

Individual Income Tax

Education Fund

Property and Energy Credit

Other

Investment Income

Inheritance Tax

Metal Severance Tax

Oil and Gas Severance Tax

Beer, Cigarette, and Tobacco

Insurance Premiums

Liquor Profits

Cable/Satellite Excise Tax

Sales and Use Tax

General Fund

General and Education Funds


Tabl

e 33

Fi

scal

Yea

r Rev

enue

Col

lect

ions

No

min

al

Re

ven

ue

(m

illi

on

s)

Re

ven

ue

So

urc

e19

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

12

Sal

es a

nd U

se T

ax$1

,251

.8$1

,316

.4$1

,369

.6$1

,431

.4$1

,441

.3$1

,444

.0$1

,501

.9$1

,634

.5$1

,806

.3$1

,857

.8$1

,739

.4$1

,547

.5$1

,402

.7$1

,601

.4$1

,582

.5Ea

rmar

ked

Sale

s an

d Us

e Ta

x37

.635

.139

.243

.743

.229

.039

.142

.010

0.2

250.

032

5.3

276.

330

1.0

189.

233

2.4

Tota

l Sal

es a

nd U

se T

ax1,

289.

41,

351.

51,

408.

81,

475.

11,

484.

51,

472.

91,

541.

11,

676.

51,

906.

42,

107.

82,

064.

71,

823.

81,

703.

71,

790.

61,

915.

0C

able

/Sat

ellit

e E

xcis

e Ta

x0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

011

.720

.520

.824

.124

.825

.325

.428

.7Li

quor

Pro

fits

26.3

27.0

28.7

30.3

32.6

31.7

37.7

38.1

47.3

53.2

59.7

59.7

58.4

62.3

70.8

Insu

ranc

e P

rem

ium

s44

.647

.752

.246

.056

.659

.062

.467

.471

.471

.877

.283

.080

.075

.984

.4B

eer,

Cig

aret

te,

and

Toba

cco

53.2

60.0

58.0

57.9

60.0

54.2

62.8

61.9

60.8

62.4

62.8

60.6

58.7

125.

512

5.4

Oil

and

Gas

Sev

eran

ce T

ax14

.07.

917

.339

.418

.926

.736

.753

.571

.565

.465

.571

.056

.259

.965

.5M

etal

Sev

eran

ce T

ax9.

05.

15.

76.

25.

05.

86.

011

.417

.023

.626

.514

.620

.927

.125

.4In

herit

ance

Tax

25.4

8.2

64.6

30.0

9.4

33.0

9.7

3.0

7.4

0.5

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.0

Inve

stm

ent

Inco

me

15.7

15.0

19.5

27.5

9.7

6.5

5.5

13.6

40.0

83.5

62.8

25.1

5.3

2.4

5.6

Gen

eral

Fun

d O

ther

40.1

38.0

40.8

46.0

45.3

46.7

45.6

46.4

50.8

58.0

53.4

54.4

80.3

72.3

95.9

Pro

pert

y an

d E

nerg

y C

redi

t-4

.5-5

.3-4

.4-5

.4-5

.3-5

.5-5

.6-5

.9-5

.6-6

.2-6

.4-6

.2-6

.4-6

.0-6

.8G

en

era

l F

un

d T

ota

l1,

475.

61,

520.

21,

652.

11,

709.

31,

673.

51,

702.

11,

762.

71,

935.

42,

187.

52,

290.

92,

165.

11,

934.

61,

781.

42,

046.

32,

077.

5

GF

& E

arm

arks

Tot

al1,

513.

31,

555.

31,

691.

31,

753.

01,

716.

71,

731.

11,

801.

81,

977.

42,

287.

62,

540.

92,

490.

42,

210.

92,

082.

42,

235.

42,

409.

9

Indi

vidu

al In

com

e Ta

x1,

374.

51,

461.

31,

651.

41,

705.

31,

605.

31,

572.

51,

692.

31,

926.

62,

277.

62,

561.

42,

598.

82,

319.

62,

104.

62,

298.

22,

459.

4W

ithho

ldin

g1,

223.

91,

318.

21,

452.

71,

527.

51,

571.

91,

544.

61,

617.

91,

741.

61,

929.

62,

124.

02,

138.

21,

962.

31,

942.

12,

035.

32,

151.

8Fi

nal P

aym

ents

403.

241

3.1

487.

948

7.5

396.

138

1.5

432.

254

9.8

745.

290

2.1

962.

775

3.4

613.

866

9.3

689.

0R

efun

ds-2

52.6

-270

.1-2

89.2

-309

.7-3

62.7

-353

.6-3

57.8

-364

.9-3

97.2

-464

.7-5

02.1

-396

.1-4

51.3

-406

.4-3

81.4

Cor

pora

te T

axes

191.

818

8.1

181.

117

1.1

119.

015

6.3

158.

220

4.2

366.

641

4.1

405.

125

5.4

258.

426

0.7

268.

9M

iner

al P

rodu

ctio

n W

ittho

ldin

g7.

56.

89.

319

.513

.27.

217

.316

.722

.723

.123

.832

.524

.626

.728

.3E

duca

tion

Fun

d O

ther

7.1

7.6

8.5

9.7

5.6

5.0

4.5

0.0

9.8

18.2

20.1

19.3

24.6

26.6

25.2

Ed

uca

tio

n F

un

d T

ota

l1,

580.

81,

663.

71,

850.

41,

905.

51,

743.

01,

741.

01,

872.

22,

147.

62,

676.

83,

016.

83,

047.

82,

626.

82,

412.

22,

612.

22,

781.

9

GF

/EF

To

tal

3,05

6.5

3,18

3.9

3,50

2.4

3,61

4.8

3,41

6.5

3,44

3.1

3,63

4.9

4,08

3.0

4,86

4.2

5,30

7.7

5,21

2.9

4,56

1.4

4,19

3.6

4,65

8.5

4,85

9.3

GF/

EF &

Ear

mar

ks T

otal

3,09

4.1

3,21

9.0

3,54

1.6

3,65

8.5

3,45

9.7

3,47

2.0

3,67

4.0

4,12

5.0

4,96

4.4

5,55

7.7

5,53

8.2

4,83

7.7

4,49

4.6

4,84

7.7

5,19

1.8

Mot

or F

uel T

ax21

7.7

224.

723

7.6

229.

423

7.9

236.

623

9.9

241.

524

0.4

254.

725

0.7

235.

524

3.3

252.

525

3.0

Spe

cial

Fue

l Tax

72.4

73.7

76.6

80.6

84.4

84.5

86.2

93.8

101.

111

1.1

113.

010

1.2

94.4

102.

210

4.1

Oth

er54

.858

.564

.964

.262

.865

.464

.970

.076

.678

.882

.485

.473

.680

.779

.2T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n F

un

d T

ota

l34

4.9

356.

937

9.0

374.

238

5.1

386.

639

1.0

405.

341

8.1

444.

644

6.0

422.

141

1.4

435.

443

6.2

Min

eral

Lea

se P

aym

ents

33.5

31.5

39.6

57.9

36.5

53.1

74.8

92.0

170.

016

0.9

150.

318

9.1

147.

215

2.8

194.

0

TO

TA

L3,

434.

83,

572.

23,

921.

14,

046.

83,

838.

13,

882.

74,

100.

74,

580.

35,

452.

45,

913.

25,

809.

25,

172.

74,

752.

25,

246.

75,

489.

5

TOTA

L &

Eam

arks

3,47

2.5

3,60

7.3

3,96

0.3

4,09

0.5

3,88

1.3

3,91

1.7

4,13

9.8

4,62

2.3

5,55

2.6

6,16

3.2

6,13

4.6

5,44

9.0

5,05

3.2

5,43

5.9

5,82

2.0

Sou

rce:

Gov

erno

r's O

ffice

of M

anag

emen

t an

d B

udge

t


Tabl

e 34

Fi

scal

Yea

r Rev

enue

Col

lect

ions

No

min

al

Re

ven

ue

(p

erc

en

t ch

an

ge

)

Re

ven

ue

So

urc

e19

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

12

Sal

es a

nd U

se T

ax5.

2%4.

0%4.

5%0.

7%0.

2%4.

0%8.

8%10

.5%

2.9%

-6.4

%-1

1.0%

-9.4

%14

.2%

-1.2

%Ea

rmar

ked

Sale

s an

d Us

e Ta

x-6

.711

.711

.5-1

.1-3

3.0

35.1

7.3

138.

514

9.6

30.1

-15.

18.

9-3

7.2

75.7

Tota

l Sal

es a

nd U

se T

ax4.

84.

24.

70.

6-0

.84.

68.

813

.710

.6-2

.0-1

1.7

-6.6

5.1

6.9

Cab

le/S

atel

lite

Exc

ise

Tax

75.8

1.7

15.5

3.0

2.0

0.3

13.0

Liqu

or P

rofit

s2.

56.

35.

67.

7-2

.518

.61.

124

.212

.512

.20.

0-2

.26.

813

.6In

sura

nce

Pre

miu

ms

7.1

9.3

-11.

823

.14.

25.

87.

96.

00.

57.

67.

5-3

.6-5

.211

.2B

eer,

Cig

aret

te,

and

Toba

cco

12.8

-3.3

-0.2

3.5

-9.6

15.9

-1.4

-1.8

2.6

0.7

-3.6

-3.1

113.

8-0

.1O

il an

d G

as S

ever

ance

Tax

-43.

211

8.0

127.

3-5

2.0

41.6

37.1

45.9

33.7

-8.5

0.1

8.4

-20.

86.

59.

5M

etal

Sev

eran

ce T

ax-4

3.3

11.5

8.9

-20.

217

.83.

390

.048

.938

.512

.5-4

5.1

43.2

30.0

-6.3

Inhe

ritan

ce T

ax-6

7.6

683.

7-5

3.5

-68.

624

9.9

-70.

7-6

9.5

152.

3-9

3.3

-80.

923

6.7

-81.

111

3.8

-100

.0In

vest

men

t In

com

e-4

.530

.040

.8-6

4.6

-33.

5-1

4.9

147.

119

4.1

108.

7-2

4.8

-60.

1-7

8.8

-55.

013

5.2

Gen

eral

Fun

d O

ther

-5.3

7.4

12.8

-1.5

2.9

-2.3

1.6

9.5

14.3

-8.0

1.8

47.6

-9.9

32.7

Pro

pert

y an

d E

nerg

y C

redi

t17

.0-1

7.3

23.8

-1.3

3.2

2.2

5.6

-5.7

9.9

3.8

-2.6

2.4

-6.4

13.8

Ge

ne

ral

Fu

nd

To

tal

3.0

8.7

3.5

-2.1

1.7

3.6

9.8

13.0

4.7

-5.5

-10.

6-7

.914

.91.

5

GF

& E

arm

arks

Tot

al2.

88.

73.

6-2

.10.

84.

19.

715

.711

.1-2

.0-1

1.2

-5.8

7.3

7.8

Indi

vidu

al In

com

e Ta

x6.

313

.03.

3-5

.9-2

.07.

613

.818

.212

.51.

5-1

0.7

-9.3

9.2

7.0

With

hold

ing

7.7

10.2

5.1

2.9

-1.7

4.7

7.6

10.8

10.1

0.7

-8.2

-1.0

4.8

5.7

Fina

l Pay

men

ts2.

518

.1-0

.1-1

8.7

-3.7

13.3

27.2

35.5

21.1

6.7

-21.

7-1

8.5

9.0

2.9

Ref

unds

6.9

7.1

7.1

17.1

-2.5

1.2

2.0

8.9

17.0

8.0

-21.

113

.9-9

.9-6

.2C

orpo

rate

Tax

es-1

.9-3

.7-5

.5-3

0.5

31.4

1.2

29.1

79.6

13.0

-2.2

-36.

91.

20.

93.

1M

iner

al P

rodu

ctio

n W

ittho

ldin

g-9

.637

.710

9.2

-32.

0-4

5.7

140.

3-3

.135

.81.

43.

436

.3-2

4.4

8.7

6.2

Edu

catio

n F

und

Oth

er7.

111

.913

.8-4

2.4

-10.

7-8

.9-9

9.1

23,9

89.4

85.9

10.4

-3.8

27.4

8.1

-5.4

Ed

uca

tio

n F

un

d T

ota

l5.

211

.23.

0-8

.5-0

.17.

514

.724

.612

.71.

0-1

3.8

-8.2

8.3

6.5

GF

/EF

To

tal

4.2

10.0

3.2

-5.5

0.8

5.6

12.3

19.1

9.1

-1.8

-12.

5-8

.111

.14.

3

GF/

EF &

Ear

mar

ks T

otal

4.0

10.0

3.3

-5.4

0.4

5.8

12.3

20.3

12.0

-0.4

-12.

6-7

.17.

97.

1

Mot

or F

uel T

ax3.

25.

7-3

.43.

7-0

.51.

40.

6-0

.45.

9-1

.6-6

.13.

33.

80.

2S

peci

al F

uel T

ax1.

83.

95.

24.

70.

11.

98.

97.

79.

91.

7-1

0.4

-6.7

8.2

1.9

Oth

er6.

710

.9-1

.1-2

.24.

2-0

.87.

99.

52.

84.

63.

7-1

3.8

9.6

-1.9

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

Fu

nd

To

tal

3.5

6.2

-1.3

2.9

0.4

1.1

3.7

3.2

6.3

0.3

-5.4

-2.5

5.8

0.2

Min

eral

Lea

se P

aym

ents

-5.9

25.7

46.0

-36.

945

.640

.923

.084

.8-5

.4-6

.525

.8-2

2.2

3.8

27.0

TO

TA

L4.

09.

83.

2-5

.21.

25.

611

.719

.08.

5-1

.8-1

1.0

-8.1

10.4

4.6

TOTA

L &

Eam

arks

3.9

9.8

3.3

-5.1

0.8

5.8

11.7

20.1

11.0

-0.5

-11.

2-7

.37.

67.

1

Sou

rce:

Gov

erno

r's O

ffice

of M

anag

emen

t an

d B

udge

t


Table 35 Comparison of Forecast and Actual General and Education Fund Collections

Fiscal Leg. Leg.Year Actual (135) (135)

1997 7.9% 6.5% 6.0% 5.4% x 6.2% x 1.4% 1.9% 2.5% x 1.7% x1998 6.3% 4.1% 4.4% 5.5% x 5.9% x 2.2% 1.9% 0.8% x 0.4% x1999 4.2% 4.1% 4.4% 6.4% 6.6% 0.1% -0.2% -2.2% -2.5%2000 10.0% 5.9% 4.6% 4.9% x 4.7% x 4.1% 5.4% 5.1% x 5.3% x2001 3.2% 4.8% 4.8% 3.4% 4.9% -1.6% -1.6% -0.2% -1.7%2002 -5.5% -5.7% -0.2% 3.8% x 4.7% x 0.2% -5.3% -9.3% x -10.1% x2003 0.8% 0.6% -0.8% 2.8% 4.1% 0.2% 1.6% -2.1% -3.3%2004 5.6% 2.7% 1.4% 2.7% 3.3% 2.8% 4.1% 2.9% 2.2%2005 12.3% 6.4% 5.1% 2.8% 3.0% 5.9% 7.2% 9.5% 9.3%2006 19.1% 9.6% 7.6% 3.5% x 2.9% x 9.5% 11.5% 15.6% x 16.2% x2007 9.1% 3.8% 2.4% 1.0% x 1.1% x 5.3% 6.8% 8.2% x 8.0% x2008 -1.8% -0.3% 1.8% 1.2% x 1.1% x -1.5% -3.6% -3.0% x -2.9% x2009 -12.5% -13.1% -9.8% 0.5% 2.7% 0.6% -2.7% -13.0% -15.2%2010 -8.1% -7.5% -7.5% -3.4% -2.1% -0.6% -0.6% -4.6% -5.9%2011 11.1% 8.8% 8.2% 3.3% x 4.5% x 2.3% 2.9% 7.7% x 6.6% x2012 4.3% 2.4% 2.0% 2.6% 2.0% 1.9% 2.3% 1.7% 2.3%

average 4.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.9% 3.5% 2.1% 2.0% 1.2% 0.6%median 4.9% 4.0% 3.4% 3.1% 3.7% 1.7% 1.9% 1.2% 1.1%

x - significant policy differences impacting forecast tax collections

Source: Governor's Office of Management and Budget

(495) (585)Gov.(585)

Leg.(495)

Forecast (days to close) Difference to Actual (days to close)Current Year Prior YearCurrent Year Prior Year

Gov.(225)

Gov. Leg. Gov.(225)

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 83 Exports UT

2011 Summary Utah's Merchandise Exports in National Context. Utah’s export growth for the 2010 to 2011 period was the second highest in the nation. Only West Virginia’s 40.1% growth in exports outpaced Utah. In terms of total exports by state, Utah moved from 26th largest in 2010 to 21st in 2011, exporting about $19 billion, or 1.3% of total national exports. Texas continued to lead the nation in exports with $251 bil-lion, exporting 17% of the nation’s total exports. Utah's Merchandise Exports by Industry. Utah's leading merchandise export in 2011 was primary metal products, al-most exclusively gold. Primary metals exports increased by 60% in 2011 to $12.2 billion. Primary metals constituted 64.1% of Utah exports in 2011, an increase from 2010 when they accounted for 55.2% of total exports. Exports of com-puters and electronics valued at $2.2 billion were the second largest category of exports in 2011, accounting for 11.6% of total exports. Other leading export categories for 2011 were chemicals ($745.5 million, or 3.9% of total) transportation equipment ($656.9 million, 3.5% of total), food ($652.6 mil-lion, 3.4% of total), and machinery ($522.1 million, 2.7% of total). In 2011, Utah had substantial growth in the following catego-ries: forestry products, up 211.4% to $2 million; petroleum and coal, up 186.3% to $13.3 million; leather, up 61.5% to $12.9 million; scrap, up 37.7% to $278.9 million; and plastics up 36.5% to $148 million. Notable declines were seen in publications, down 67.2% to $2.6 million; beverages, down 41.7% to $23.8 million; raw textiles down 41.1% to 12.7 mil-lion; and fish and marine products down 40.4% to $0.8 mil-lion. Destination of Utah's Merchandise Exports During 2011, the United Kingdom was Utah's largest custom-er with exports totaling over $6.7 billion. Hong Kong was the second largest, receiving $3.8 billion in exports. Exports to Hong Kong increased 301.7% in 2011. Exports to Thai-land also saw significant growth (310.7% growth, to $707.5 million total). In 2011, the top five purchasing countries ac-counted for 69.9% of all Utah exports, and the top ten coun-tries accounted for 83.9% of all exports from Utah. Exports to India spiked in 2010 to $1,124 million dollars due to large purchases of gold, but decreased 49.7% from 2010 to 2011 for a total of $565.8 million, closer to historic levels.

Canada and Mexico. Canada and Mexico were Utah's third and ninth highest export destinations, respectively. In con-trast to the United Kingdom, where the vast majority of Utah exports were in the form of gold, Canada and Mexico import-ed a wider array of goods. In 2011, the largest categories of goods exported to Canada were primary metals ($240.3 mil-lion), transportation equipment ($235.2 million), and chemi-cals ($202.6 million). The largest categories of goods export-ed to Mexico were transportation equipment ($121.0 million), chemicals ($79.3 million), and minerals ($54.0 million). From 2009 to 2010, total exports to Canada increased 24.1%, and total exports to Mexico increased 63.3%. From 2010 to 2011, total exports to Canada increased 8.7% and increased 12.9% to Mexico. Gold. Utah continues to be a large exporter of gold. How-ever, Utah’s gold exports as reported by the Census Bureau is dramatically larger than what is mined in Utah. Conversa-tions with industry contacts suggest essentially all of the gold mined in Utah remains within the U.S. and is not included in exports. The gold exported from Utah is primarily mined in other western states. Partially refined ore is shipped into Utah for final processing into pure gold, and then shipped to customers mostly in the United Kingdom and, more recently, Hong Kong and Thailand. Gold exports do not provide a substantial number of jobs for the state, but they increase the value of Utah’s exports, espe-cially as the price of gold rises beyond historic levels. For purposes of tracking real job impact and growth of Utah’s economy, gold exports are not a substantial factor. For this reason it is important to consider Utah exports both with and without primary metal shipments Non Gold. While much of Utah’s export growth has come from the increasing value of primary metal shipments, non primary metal exports continued to grow through 2010. Ex-cluding primary metals, Utah exports grew from $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion, a 10.5% increase. From 2010 to 2011, strong growth was seen in several industries. Computers and elec-tronics increased 11.5% from $1.97 billion to $2.2 billion. Chemical exports grew from $706.2 million to $745.5 million, 5.6% growth. Food exports grew from $603.5 million to $652 million, an 8.1% increase. Machinery exports grew 20% from $435.1 million to $522.1 million. 2012 Outlook The rising price of gold along with growth in many other important sectors increased Utah's exports $19 billion in 2011. The price of gold will likely continue to grow but at a slower rate. Other sectors, particularly medical devices and technology will become greater contributors to exports.

Exports

Buoyed by the rising price of gold, Utah exports grew 37.8% from 2010 to 2011. Shipments of primary metals, particularly gold, accounted for approximately 64.1% of total exports in 2011. Computers and electronics comprised the second high-est proportion of total exports, 11.6%. In 2011, exports ex-cluding primary metals grew by 10.5%.


Figure 31 Utah Merchandise Exports

Figure 32 Utah Merchandise Exports to Top Ten Purchasing Industries

$3,506 4,542 4,119

4,731

6,0676,801

7,815

10,306 10,337

13,809

19,034

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

llar

s



203

435

431

210

706

604

374

649

1,974

7,622

279

522

457

221

746

653

458

657

2,201

12,197

$0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000

Scrap

Machinery

Miscellaneous Manufactures

Fabricated Metals

Chemicals

Food

Minerals

Transportation Equipment

Computers and Electronics

Primary Metals

Millions of Dollars

2011 2010


Figure 33 Utah Merchandise Exports to Top Ten Purchasing Countries

Figure 34 Utah Merchandise Exports: With and Without Gold



221

456

578

1,125

525

551

172

1,265

947

4,408

494

515

521

566

570

697

708

1,375

3,806

6,715

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000

Australia

Mexico

China

India

Singapore

Taiwan

Thailand

Canada

Hong Kong

United Kingdom

Millions of Dollars

2011 2010

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total Exports Primary Metals (Gold) All Other Exports


Table 36 U.S. Merchandise Exports by State

2010-2011Percent 2011

Rank Geography 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Change Share

24 Alabama $8,257 $8,330 $9,063 $10,879 $13,899 $14,407 $15,879 $12,355 $15,502 $17,854 15.2% 1.2%40 Alaska 2,504 2,739 3,157 3,613 4,046 4,010 3,542 3,270 4,155 5,325 28.2% 0.4%25 Arizona 11,861 13,321 13,481 14,947 18,299 19,228 19,784 14,023 15,636 17,793 13.8% 1.2%38 Arkansas 2,808 2,960 3,482 3,871 4,264 4,887 5,776 5,267 5,219 5,607 7.4% 0.4%2 California 92,178 93,906 110,144 116,690 127,771 134,319 144,806 120,080 143,192 159,122 11.1% 10.7%35 Colorado 5,525 6,087 6,660 6,773 7,955 7,352 7,713 5,867 6,727 7,332 9.0% 0.5%26 Connecticut 8,311 8,133 8,574 9,750 12,248 13,799 15,384 13,979 16,056 16,212 1.0% 1.1%39 Delaware 2,017 1,888 2,055 2,535 3,897 4,024 4,898 4,312 4,966 5,510 11.0% 0.4%50 District Of Columbia 1,066 809 1,164 823 1,040 1,082 1,196 1,091 1,501 1,039 -30.8% 0.1%4 Florida 24,462 24,905 29,043 33,444 38,558 44,858 54,238 46,888 55,365 64,904 17.2% 4.4%12 Georgia 14,424 16,282 19,720 20,657 20,113 23,366 27,514 23,743 28,950 34,776 20.1% 2.3%51 Hawaii 514 368 412 1,032 693 560 960 563 684 884 29.2% 0.1%37 Idaho 1,962 2,095 2,916 3,273 3,727 4,703 5,005 3,877 5,157 5,905 14.5% 0.4%5 Illinois 25,675 26,503 30,313 36,169 42,135 48,896 53,677 41,626 50,058 64,823 29.5% 4.4%13 Indiana 14,956 16,468 19,212 21,594 22,666 25,956 26,502 22,907 28,745 32,282 12.3% 2.2%28 Iowa 4,754 5,238 6,415 7,373 8,428 9,656 12,125 9,042 10,880 13,307 22.3% 0.9%29 Kansas 4,989 4,545 4,940 6,736 8,636 10,277 12,514 8,917 9,905 11,598 17.1% 0.8%20 Kentucky 10,680 10,729 13,055 14,961 17,254 19,652 19,121 17,650 19,343 20,084 3.8% 1.4%7 Louisiana 17,583 18,332 19,920 19,404 23,477 30,319 41,908 32,616 41,356 54,976 32.9% 3.7%43 Maine 1,980 2,200 2,432 2,332 2,642 2,750 3,016 2,231 3,164 3,421 8.1% 0.2%31 Maryland 4,477 4,921 5,757 7,138 7,600 8,949 11,383 9,225 10,163 10,852 6.8% 0.7%15 Massachusetts 16,705 18,652 21,899 22,052 24,057 25,351 28,369 23,593 26,304 27,761 5.5% 1.9%8 Michigan 33,969 33,489 35,949 37,849 40,500 44,555 45,136 32,655 44,768 51,003 13.9% 3.4%19 Minnesota 10,398 11,267 12,698 14,736 16,349 18,062 19,186 15,532 18,904 20,319 7.5% 1.4%30 Mississippi 3,065 2,552 3,179 4,021 4,484 5,184 7,323 6,316 8,229 10,930 32.8% 0.7%27 Missouri 6,787 7,238 9,021 10,514 12,781 13,484 12,852 9,522 12,926 14,154 9.5% 1.0%47 Montana 386 363 566 715 900 1,134 1,395 1,053 1,389 1,587 14.3% 0.1%34 Nebraska 2,511 2,713 2,330 3,003 3,633 4,266 5,412 4,873 5,820 7,582 30.3% 0.5%33 Nevada 1,179 2,027 2,911 3,941 5,494 5,714 6,121 5,672 5,912 7,978 34.9% 0.5%41 New Hampshire 1,864 1,933 2,293 2,557 2,817 2,914 3,752 3,061 4,367 4,297 -1.6% 0.3%11 New Jersey 17,002 16,817 19,180 21,107 27,231 30,836 35,643 27,244 32,154 38,115 18.5% 2.6%46 New Mexico 1,187 2,328 2,047 2,543 2,895 2,585 2,783 1,270 1,541 2,092 35.7% 0.1%3 New York 37,757 40,144 45,639 51,841 59,132 71,116 81,386 58,743 69,696 84,888 21.8% 5.7%16 North Carolina 14,728 16,202 18,156 19,507 21,286 23,356 25,091 21,793 24,905 27,009 8.4% 1.8%44 North Dakota 860 852 1,013 1,192 1,520 2,047 2,772 2,193 2,536 3,393 33.8% 0.2%9 Ohio 27,774 29,798 31,712 35,110 38,161 42,562 45,628 34,104 41,494 46,416 11.9% 3.1%36 Oklahoma 2,445 2,660 3,186 4,322 4,395 4,579 5,077 4,415 5,353 6,222 16.2% 0.4%22 Oregon 10,080 10,347 11,214 12,407 15,303 16,531 19,352 14,907 17,671 18,310 3.6% 1.2%10 Pennsylvania 15,746 16,216 18,539 22,334 26,359 29,195 34,649 28,381 34,928 41,075 17.6% 2.8%45 Rhode Island 1,121 1,178 1,289 1,268 1,532 1,649 1,974 1,496 1,949 2,282 17.1% 0.2%17 South Carolina 9,650 11,786 13,431 13,960 13,620 16,575 19,853 16,488 20,329 24,697 21.5% 1.7%48 South Dakota 596 672 831 948 1,192 1,510 1,654 1,011 1,259 1,460 16.0% 0.1%14 Tennessee 11,629 12,624 16,159 19,174 21,648 21,865 23,238 20,484 25,943 29,993 15.6% 2.0%1 Texas 95,427 98,920 117,404 129,346 150,890 168,229 192,222 162,995 206,961 251,006 21.3% 17.0%21 Utah 4,542 4,119 4,731 6,067 6,801 7,815 10,306 10,337 13,809 19,034 37.8% 1.3%42 Vermont 2,523 2,627 3,341 4,672 3,874 3,685 3,697 3,219 4,277 4,257 -0.5% 0.3%23 Virginia 10,809 10,842 11,672 12,238 14,155 16,864 18,942 15,052 17,163 18,089 5.4% 1.2%6 Washington 34,741 35,401 29,610 33,078 42,391 52,089 54,498 51,851 53,353 64,767 21.4% 4.4%32 West Virginia 2,246 2,385 3,254 3,161 3,240 3,987 5,643 4,826 6,449 9,034 40.1% 0.6%18 Wisconsin 10,678 11,515 12,705 14,961 17,174 18,825 20,570 16,725 19,790 22,055 11.4% 1.5%49 Wyoming 553 581 681 671 834 802 1,081 926 983 1,219 23.9% 0.1%

United States 693,103 724,771 814,875 901,082 1,025,967 1,148,199 1,287,442 1,056,043 1,278,263 1,480,432 15.8% 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau through Economy.com

Millions of Dollars


Tabl

e 37

U

tah

Mer

chan

dise

Exp

orts

by

Indu

stry

2010

-201

1P

erce

nt20

11R

ank

Cod

eN

ame

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Cha

nge

Sha

re

1611

1A

gric

ultu

ral P

rodu

cts

$4.4

$5.5

$9.1

$12.

9$1

2.5

$15.

4$3

0.3

$54.

7$2

3.1

$30.

532

.1%

0.2%

2611

2Li

vest

ock

and

Live

stoc

k P

rodu

cts

0.7

1.7

1.6

0.7

1.0

1.9

0.9

4.0

7.9

6.4

-18.

9%0.

0%29

113

For

estr

y P

rodu

cts

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.8

1.2

0.9

0.6

2.0

211.

4%0.

0%30

114

Fis

h an

d M

arin

e P

rodu

cts

1.3

1.7

4.1

3.7

5.3

3.2

2.7

2.6

1.3

0.8

-40.

4%0.

0%31

211

Oil

and

Gas

0.0

0.1

0.9

0.0

0.5

0.1

0.8

1.1

1.2

0.7

-36.

4%0.

0%7

212

Min

eral

s62

.343

.096

.861

9.0

572.

454

9.8

577.

323

6.5

374.

045

7.8

22.4

%2.

4%5

311

Foo

d25

5.2

282.

931

1.1

358.

838

2.7

428.

151

2.9

513.

960

3.5

652.

68.

1%3.

4%17

312

Bev

erag

es5.

926

.78.

252

.350

.033

.128

.050

.440

.823

.8-4

1.7%

0.1%

2331

3R

aw T

extil

es7.

13.

63.

93.

54.

25.

26.

05.

821

.612

.7-4

1.1%

0.1%

2431

4M

illed

Tex

tiles

2.1

5.2

5.5

6.8

8.3

10.6

15.7

16.2

11.8

11.8

0.0%

0.1%

2531

5A

ppar

el3.

44.

34.

55.

36.

56.

05.

45.

910

.59.

3-1

1.4%

0.0%

2231

6Le

athe

r6.

66.

17.

97.

47.

87.

010

.38.

38.

012

.961

.5%

0.1%

2732

1W

ood

Pro

duct

s2.

02.

72.

62.

22.

53.

79.

04.

34.

33.

1-2

8.3%

0.0%

1432

2P

aper

43.5

27.7

32.0

34.9

59.3

75.2

62.4

47.0

43.5

40.8

-6.1

%0.

2%20

323

Prin

ted

Mat

eria

l24

.222

.026

.828

.230

.937

.929

.729

.720

.517

.1-1

6.6%

0.1%

2132

4P

etro

leum

and

Coa

l2.

71.

84.

25.

99.

56.

17.

13.

64.

613

.318

6.3%

0.1%

332

5C

hem

ical

s26

5.7

340.

743

0.0

456.

146

9.0

481.

449

6.5

522.

170

6.2

745.

55.

6%3.

9%12

326

Pla

stic

s65

.675

.067

.059

.879

.672

.596

.481

.710

8.5

148.

036

.5%

0.8%

1832

7N

onm

etal

lic M

iner

als

11.2

9.9

12.0

13.5

13.5

22.4

24.9

22.5

26.6

23.4

-12.

0%0.

1%1

331

Prim

ary

Met

als

1,91

0.4

1,46

4.4

1,51

2.4

2,06

0.2

2,77

0.0

3,22

2.3

4,24

0.4

5,46

6.2

7,62

1.5

12,1

97.0

60.0

%64

.1%

1033

2F

abric

ated

Met

als

53.9

62.0

71.7

90.9

111.

613

3.6

167.

616

8.0

209.

722

0.6

5.2%

1.2%

633

3M

achi

nery

140.

114

1.8

205.

822

6.8

267.

029

4.7

354.

132

1.0

435.

152

2.1

20.0

%2.

7%2

334

Com

pute

rs a

nd E

lect

roni

cs75

8.0

624.

091

0.0

854.

958

7.4

943.

41,

982.

91,

588.

51,

974.

42,

200.

711

.5%

11.6

%11

335

Ele

ctric

al E

quip

men

t10

2.8

85.7

80.5

102.

710

4.6

117.

412

6.9

112.

514

8.9

184.

423

.9%

1.0%

433

6Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Equ

ipm

ent

489.

847

1.1

479.

254

6.8

621.

270

2.9

812.

954

1.1

649.

365

6.9

1.2%

3.5%

1533

7F

urni

ture

12.3

13.4

20.8

27.3

61.6

63.8

55.0

38.9

30.9

36.2

17.1

%0.

2%8

339

Mis

cella

neou

s M

anuf

actu

res

213.

429

4.1

289.

833

3.0

377.

738

3.5

427.

335

8.3

431.

445

7.4

6.0%

2.4%

2851

1P

ublic

atio

ns0.

02.

28.

08.

28.

213

.69.

35.

97.

92.

6-6

7.2%

0.0%

991

0S

crap

9.7

12.8

26.0

40.8

78.7

104.

111

1.6

65.0

202.

527

8.9

37.7

%1.

5%19

920

Use

d M

erch

andi

se2.

62.

02.

93.

88.

218

.534

.59.

924

.021

.2-1

1.7%

0.1%

1398

0, 9

90U

ncla

ssifi

ed84

.284

.795

.499

.688

.156

.566

.150

.655

.243

.0-2

2.2%

0.2%

Tota

l4,

542

$ 4,

119

$ 4,

731

$ 6,

067

$ 6,

801

$ 7,

815

$ 10

,306

$ $1

0,33

7$1

3,80

9$1

9,03

437

.8%

100.

0%

Sou

rce:

U.S

. C

ensu

s B

urea

u

Indu

stry

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs


Tabl

e 38

U

tah

Mer

chan

dise

Exp

orts

by

Purc

hasi

ng C

ount

ry a

nd R

egio

n

2010

-201

1P

erce

nt20

11R

ank

Cou

ntry

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Cha

nge

Sha

re

1U

nite

d K

ingd

om$7

10.0

$486

.5$5

59.5

$1,1

05.8

$2,2

82.6

$2,3

82.4

$3,5

16.1

$4,3

64.1

$4,4

07.9

$6,7

15.3

52.3

%35

.3%

2H

ong

Kon

g67

.358

.889

.114

6.0

90.4

101.

613

3.4

153.

494

7.4

3,80

5.6

301.

7%20

.0%

3C

anad

a51

2.2

548.

587

7.2

713.

989

0.8

947.

31,

082.

81,

019.

41,

265.

21,

375.

18.

7%7.

2%4

Thai

land

29.0

30.4

61.1

40.0

28.2

41.0

163.

146

.617

2.3

707.

531

0.7%

3.7%

5Ta

iwan

59.7

62.8

79.5

97.0

81.7

211.

072

7.6

567.

955

0.9

696.

626

.4%

3.7%

6S

inga

pore

263.

638

.412

5.7

127.

557

.022

2.9

373.

225

3.3

524.

557

0.3

8.7%

3.0%

7In

dia

12.8

23.5

18.5

54.2

20.6

384.

049

6.8

649.

51,

124.

756

5.8

-49.

7%3.

0%8

Chi

na64

.111

3.9

124.

032

1.4

245.

138

6.6

527.

054

2.3

577.

652

0.5

-9.9

%2.

7%9

Mex

ico

134.

511

1.0

122.

012

9.4

267.

322

3.8

241.

927

9.4

456.

351

5.4

13.0

%2.

7%10

Aus

tral

ia51

.667

.274

.510

9.7

121.

012

6.6

183.

918

2.8

220.

549

4.0

124.

0%2.

6%11

Japa

n42

7.3

476.

554

0.9

588.

848

3.7

416.

437

5.9

342.

240

6.2

407.

90.

4%2.

1%12

Ger

man

y68

.811

8.7

170.

120

9.1

205.

017

0.6

234.

016

5.9

226.

428

3.2

25.1

%1.

5%13

Bel

gium

62.7

69.3

93.5

428.

234

5.3

393.

354

3.4

208.

729

0.3

271.

0-6

.6%

1.4%

14K

orea

, S

outh

88.4

69.8

105.

512

4.6

128.

812

6.2

201.

529

4.5

273.

022

2.7

-18.

4%1.

2%15

Italy

39.1

39.0

43.5

59.5

71.3

67.0

72.7

73.3

148.

415

5.9

5.1%

0.8%

16C

hile

6.2

12.4

31.3

11.6

14.1

16.3

30.1

23.1

31.0

137.

934

4.4%

0.7%

17F

ranc

e51

.166

.372

.911

2.7

94.8

106.

486

.577

.810

9.0

136.

725

.3%

0.7%

18P

hilip

pine

s84

.810

3.6

117.

811

0.4

113.

714

6.3

144.

210

6.5

145.

112

9.9

-10.

5%0.

7%19

Turk

ey23

.412

.74.

614

.018

.416

.938

.618

.261

.012

6.9

108.

0%0.

7%20

Net

herla

nds

137.

712

4.4

105.

411

9.2

116.

518

8.7

175.

792

.711

0.3

124.

612

.9%

0.7%

21S

witz

erla

nd1,

341.

21,

105.

277

2.6

777.

148

4.1

455.

764

.394

.871

8.6

101.

8-8

5.8%

0.5%

22B

razi

l12

.822

.940

.330

.579

.795

.510

0.5

99.8

78.1

100.

929

.2%

0.5%

23M

alay

sia

31.2

26.6

40.0

49.6

29.7

40.6

51.8

69.4

152.

093

.9-3

8.2%

0.5%

24S

pain

23.9

26.8

24.6

49.4

41.5

49.5

48.8

44.7

55.6

62.5

12.4

%0.

3%25

Isra

el9.

420

.447

.757

.558

.860

.280

.345

.558

.853

.9-8

.3%

0.3%

26S

outh

Afri

ca3.

64.

29.

816

.032

.017

.715

.214

.418

.748

.415

8.5%

0.3%

27U

nite

d A

rab

Em

irate

s5.

54.

593

.513

8.0

32.3

27.5

99.3

63.7

128.

344

.3-6

5.5%

0.2%

28S

wed

en14

.011

.317

.716

.027

.025

.938

.134

.344

.341

.3-6

.7%

0.2%

29Ire

land

18.0

24.3

16.7

16.8

77.3

38.8

19.0

21.2

14.8

22.7

53.5

%0.

1%30

Rus

sia

7.8

11.7

13.8

11.4

10.6

16.0

39.7

23.8

40.0

22.5

-43.

9%0.

1%31

Indo

nesi

a2.

02.

42.

15.

55.

47.

710

.212

.716

.221

.935

.8%

0.1%

32F

inla

nd7.

76.

27.

39.

39.

66.

911

.011

.615

.319

.326

.4%

0.1%

33N

ew Z

eala

nd6.

98.

714

.212

.612

.416

.827

.416

.817

.218

.910

.2%

0.1%

34S

audi

Ara

bia

5.4

4.7

5.7

6.0

6.6

16.1

17.9

26.4

13.8

18.6

35.2

%0.

1%35

Cos

ta R

ica

30.9

32.2

24.8

21.1

23.9

21.5

18.6

24.8

17.1

17.9

4.7%

0.1%

Sou

rce:

U.S

. C

ensu

s B

urea

u

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs


Tabl

e 39

U

tah

Mer

chan

dise

Exp

orts

to T

op T

en P

urch

asin

g C

ount

ries

by In

dust

ry d

urin

g 20

11 (M

illio

ns o

f Dol

lars

)

Cod

eIn

dust

ry N

ame

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Hon

g K

ong

Can

ada

Thai

land

Taiw

anS

inga

pore

Indi

aC

hina

Mex

ico

Aus

tral

ia

10-C

ount

ry

Indu

stry

To

tal

111

Agr

icul

tura

l Pro

duct

s$0

.1$0

.2$1

.0$0

.0$0

.5$0

.0$1

.9$1

0.5

$8.4

$0.1

$22.

6311

2Li

vest

ock

and

Live

stoc

k P

rodu

cts

0.00

0.17

0.21

0.00

0.03

0.00

2.31

1.19

2.43

0.00

6.35

113

For

estr

y P

rodu

cts

0.00

0.00

0.27

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.19

0.04

0.09

0.58

114

Fis

h an

d M

arin

e P

rodu

cts

0.10

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.29

0.02

0.00

0.12

0.02

0.00

0.58

211

Oil

and

Gas

0.00

0.00

0.73

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.73

212

Min

eral

s1.

226.

1210

.96

0.11

0.03

0.44

0.62

9.52

53.9

78.

3591

.32

311

Foo

d2.

9881

.93

77.2

628

.42

41.9

221

.35

3.86

38.2

549

.97

16.2

236

2.18

312

Bev

erag

es0.

160.

2415

.90

0.00

1.60

0.06

0.00

0.13

0.00

0.24

18.3

131

3R

aw T

extil

es0.

240.

052.

080.

080.

100.

010.

090.

825.

120.

328.

9031

4M

illed

Tex

tiles

0.44

0.12

7.48

0.06

0.03

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.47

0.46

9.10

315

App

arel

0.16

0.11

1.34

0.00

0.09

0.01

0.00

0.18

1.31

0.40

3.60

316

Leat

her

0.09

0.47

5.33

0.02

0.39

0.03

0.00

0.93

0.47

0.54

8.26

321

Woo

d P

rodu

cts

0.01

0.00

0.95

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.03

0.06

1.08

322

Pap

er2.

941.

509.

080.

060.

051.

691.

6111

.79

2.08

1.10

31.9

032

3P

rinte

d M

ater

ial

0.79

0.19

4.16

0.01

0.21

0.31

0.13

0.01

0.57

0.83

7.21

324

Pet

role

um a

nd C

oal

0.01

0.00

12.8

20.

000.

000.

000.

000.

040.

210.

0813

.16

325

Che

mic

als

11.3

012

.78

202.

5711

.46

17.1

76.

186.

8944

.63

79.3

419

.05

411.

3632

6P

last

ics

7.08

0.36

68.4

90.

320.

862.

090.

597.

6419

.09

2.45

108.

9632

7N

onm

etal

lic M

iner

als

0.45

0.06

12.7

50.

750.

010.

060.

050.

663.

170.

1318

.08

331

Prim

ary

Met

als

6,57

3.38

3,54

5.39

240.

2564

9.29

1.87

49.2

052

2.37

0.72

19.6

132

9.92

11,9

32.0

133

2F

abric

ated

Met

als

4.79

0.43

83.9

90.

420.

303.

714.

9214

.81

24.0

56.

5614

3.96

333

Mac

hine

ry17

.05

17.3

715

4.32

3.96

7.85

11.1

38.

1842

.33

34.3

750

.93

347.

4733

4C

ompu

ters

and

Ele

ctro

nics

42.3

011

2.72

95.8

02.

5460

8.79

463.

246.

2420

9.65

35.3

021

.65

1,59

8.24

335

Ele

ctric

al E

quip

men

t14

.11

3.79

26.6

30.

491.

680.

740.

9414

.56

18.8

68.

2990

.10

336

Tran

spor

tatio

n E

quip

men

t19

.84

4.23

235.

177.

331.

463.

390.

2921

.33

120.

987.

2242

1.24

337

Fur

nitu

re2.

300.

029.

270.

010.

000.

040.

040.

1911

.96

2.16

25.9

833

9M

isce

llane

ous

Man

ufac

ture

s12

.33

7.35

86.3

21.

782.

174.

873.

6323

.52

15.1

012

.00

169.

0651

1P

ublic

atio

ns0.

010.

291.

600.

000.

130.

000.

010.

010.

090.

002.

1491

0S

crap

0.05

3.26

1.27

0.35

8.84

0.02

0.65

64.5

57.

290.

0086

.30

920

Use

d M

erch

andi

se0.

140.

363.

530.

000.

121.

380.

170.

070.

274.

7210

.76

990

Unc

lass

ified

1.00

6.15

3.25

0.06

0.09

0.33

0.35

2.13

0.81

0.12

14.2

8

Tota

l$6

,715

.3$3

,805

.6$1

,375

.1$7

07.5

$696

.6$5

70.3

$565

.8$5

20.5

$515

.4$4

94.0

$15,

966.

2

Sou

rce:

U.S

. C

ensu

s B

urea

u

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 91 Price Inflation and Cost of Living UT

Summary Consumer Price Index. The CPI measures price changes for a fixed basket of goods and services. The CPI for Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 3.2% in 2011, measured on an annual average basis, compared with an increase of 1.6% in 2011. Recent forecasts by Global Insight have lowered inflation expectations through 2013 to 1.3%. Gross Domestic Product Deflator. Instead of measuring a fixed basket of goods, the GDP deflator allows for substitu-tion among goods and services along with changing prices. In 2012, the GDP chain-type implicit price deflator is antici-pated to have increased by about 1.9%. Significant Issues Domestic and International Labor Market and Wage Conditions. Of all factors that contribute to sustained levels of price inflation, wage inflation is one of the largest culprits. With that said, because wages remain relatively subdued, they are not anticipated to put much pressure on inflation. Labor market conditions change on a dime, though, and could pro-vide support to strong price appreciation if expected wage inflation above certain levels becomes the norm. Housing. After three years of housing market depreciation, the housing market is anticipated to be a source of price infla-tion in the coming years as demand and confidence improves. Industrial Commodities. Industrial commodities were a large driver of price inflation prior to 2009 and contributed to price deflation in 2009. These commodities influence virtual-ly all consumer purchases (either directly or indirectly), from tires to toys. The current projection is for prices in this area to remain relatively stable in the short term. Food. Representing about 13% of total household expendi-tures, food price inflation continues to exhibit upward pres-sure. Analysts anticipate food to continue its upward pres-sure in the coming year. Gasoline and Energy. Expenditures for gasoline and ener-gy consumed about 16% of a family’s outlays in 2011. In general, a majority of analysts anticipated gasoline and energy prices to provide little upward pressure in the coming year.

Federal Reserve. In anticipation of the expected economic contraction, the Federal Reserve began lowering the short-term Federal Funds target rate in September 2007, three months before the national recession officially began. This rate reduction pattern continued until it reached a short-term target rate range of 0% to 0.25%, the lowest on record. The possible short-term rate effects on inflation continue to be subdued due to business and consumer concerns over macro-economic conditions. If the economy begins to grow strong-ly, the Federal Reserve will need to raise interest rates to avoid inflation. Government Spending. For the fourth consecutive year, the federal government’s balance sheet will show more than $1 trillion in deficit spending. As the rapid increase in CPI inflation from 2% in early 1946 to nearly 20% in mid-1947 demonstrates, large deficits can be inflationary. As the econ-omy recovers, if the federal government continues to mis-manage its finances, government spending will put upward pressure of price appreciation. The Dollar. Although a depreciation of the dollar increases the competitiveness of exports in the world markets, it also increases the prices producers and consumers pay for import-ed goods. During most of 2009, the dollar rose against the currencies of major trading partners. This short period of general appreciation has ended. The dollar is anticipated to continue to lose value, and as such, will put upward pressure on inflation. Conclusion Inflation remains relatively subdued, largely because of con-cerns over slow economic demand and poor, but moderately improving, labor market conditions. A majority of analysts anticipated inflation to remain at subdued levels in 2013.

Price Inflation and Cost of Living

As measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), aggregate prices increased 3.2% from 2010 to 2011; when measured by the gross domestic product (GDP) chain-type price deflator, prices increased by 2.1% over the same time horizon. Infla-tion remains relatively subdued, partially due to slack in the world’s labor markets and continued concern over slow eco-nomic growth. According to Global Insight’s baseline fore-casts, the U.S. CPI is anticipated to increase by 1.3% in 2013, while the U.S. GDP chain-type price deflator is expected to grow by 1.6%.


Figure 35 Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) and Gross Domestic Price Deflator

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics f = forecast

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%19

6919

7019

7119

7219

7319

7419

7519

7619

7719

7819

7919

8019

8119

8219

8319

8419

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

12f

GDP-D CPI-U


Table 40 United States Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (1982-1984=100): (Not Seasonally Adjusted)

AnnualAnnual Dec-Dec Avg.

Avg. Percent PercentYear Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Index Change Change

1959 29.0 28.9 28.9 29.0 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.2 1.7% 0.7%1960 29.3 29.4 29.4 29.5 29.5 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.6 1.4% 1.5%1961 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 30.0 29.9 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 29.9 0.7% 1.1%1962 30.0 30.1 30.1 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.3 30.3 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.3 1.3% 1.2%1963 30.4 30.4 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.6 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.8 30.8 30.9 30.6 1.6% 1.2%1964 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 31.0 31.1 31.0 31.1 31.1 31.2 31.2 31.0 1.0% 1.3%1965 31.2 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.4 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.7 31.7 31.8 31.5 1.9% 1.6%1966 31.8 32.0 32.1 32.3 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.7 32.7 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.5 3.5% 3.0%1967 32.9 32.9 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 33.7 33.8 33.9 33.4 3.0% 2.8%1968 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.7 34.9 35.0 35.1 35.3 35.4 35.5 34.8 4.7% 4.3%1969 35.6 35.8 36.1 36.3 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.0 37.1 37.3 37.5 37.7 36.7 6.2% 5.5%1970 37.8 38.0 38.2 38.5 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.0 39.2 39.4 39.6 39.8 38.8 5.6% 5.8%1971 39.8 39.9 40.0 40.1 40.3 40.6 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.9 40.9 41.1 40.5 3.3% 4.3%1972 41.1 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 41.7 41.9 42.0 42.1 42.3 42.4 42.5 41.8 3.4% 3.3%1973 42.6 42.9 43.3 43.6 43.9 44.2 44.3 45.1 45.2 45.6 45.9 46.2 44.4 8.7% 6.2%1974 46.6 47.2 47.8 48.0 48.6 49.0 49.4 50.0 50.6 51.1 51.5 51.9 49.3 12.3% 11.1%1975 52.1 52.5 52.7 52.9 53.2 53.6 54.2 54.3 54.6 54.9 55.3 55.5 53.8 6.9% 9.1%1976 55.6 55.8 55.9 56.1 56.5 56.8 57.1 57.4 57.6 57.9 58.0 58.2 56.9 4.9% 5.7%1977 58.5 59.1 59.5 60.0 60.3 60.7 61.0 61.2 61.4 61.6 61.9 62.1 60.6 6.7% 6.5%1978 62.5 62.9 63.4 63.9 64.5 65.2 65.7 66.0 66.5 67.1 67.4 67.7 65.2 9.0% 7.6%1979 68.3 69.1 69.8 70.6 71.5 72.3 73.1 73.8 74.6 75.2 75.9 76.7 72.6 13.3% 11.3%1980 77.8 78.9 80.1 81.0 81.8 82.7 82.7 83.3 84.0 84.8 85.5 86.3 82.4 12.5% 13.5%1981 87.0 87.9 88.5 89.1 89.8 90.6 91.6 92.3 93.2 93.4 93.7 94.0 90.9 8.9% 10.3%1982 94.3 94.6 94.5 94.9 95.8 97.0 97.5 97.7 97.9 98.2 98.0 97.6 96.5 3.8% 6.1%1983 97.8 97.9 97.9 98.6 99.2 99.5 99.9 100.2 100.7 101.0 101.2 101.3 99.6 3.8% 3.2%1984 101.9 102.4 102.6 103.1 103.4 103.7 104.1 104.5 105.0 105.3 105.3 105.3 103.9 3.9% 4.3%1985 105.5 106.0 106.4 106.9 107.3 107.6 107.8 108.0 108.3 108.7 109.0 109.3 107.6 3.8% 3.5%1986 109.6 109.3 108.8 108.6 108.9 109.5 109.5 109.7 110.2 110.3 110.4 110.5 109.6 1.1% 1.9%1987 111.2 111.6 112.1 112.7 113.1 113.5 113.8 114.4 115.0 115.3 115.4 115.4 113.6 4.4% 3.7%1988 115.7 116.0 116.5 117.1 117.5 118.0 118.5 119.0 119.8 120.2 120.3 120.5 118.3 4.4% 4.1%1989 121.1 121.6 122.3 123.1 123.8 124.1 124.4 124.6 125.0 125.6 125.9 126.1 124.0 4.6% 4.8%1990 127.4 128.0 128.7 128.9 129.2 129.9 130.4 131.6 132.7 133.5 133.8 133.8 130.7 6.1% 5.4%1991 134.6 134.8 135.0 135.2 135.6 136.0 136.2 136.6 137.2 137.4 137.8 137.9 136.2 3.1% 4.2%1992 138.1 138.6 139.3 139.5 139.7 140.2 140.5 140.9 141.3 141.8 142.0 141.9 140.3 2.9% 3.0%1993 142.6 143.1 143.6 144.0 144.2 144.4 144.4 144.8 145.1 145.7 145.8 145.8 144.5 2.7% 3.0%1994 146.2 146.7 147.2 147.4 147.5 148.0 148.4 149.0 149.4 149.5 149.7 149.7 148.2 2.7% 2.6%1995 150.3 150.9 151.4 151.9 152.2 152.5 152.5 152.9 153.2 153.7 153.6 153.5 152.4 2.5% 2.8%1996 154.4 154.9 155.7 156.3 156.6 156.7 157.0 157.3 157.8 158.3 158.6 158.6 156.9 3.3% 2.9%1997 159.1 159.6 160.0 160.2 160.1 160.3 160.5 160.8 161.2 161.6 161.5 161.3 160.5 1.7% 2.3%1998 161.6 161.9 162.2 162.5 162.8 163.0 163.2 163.4 163.6 164.0 164.0 163.9 163.0 1.6% 1.6%1999 164.3 164.5 165.0 166.2 166.2 166.2 166.7 167.1 167.9 168.2 168.3 168.3 166.6 2.7% 2.2%2000 168.8 169.8 171.2 171.3 171.5 172.4 172.8 172.8 173.7 174.0 174.1 174.0 172.2 3.4% 3.4%2001 175.1 175.8 176.2 176.9 177.7 178.0 177.5 177.5 178.3 177.7 177.4 176.7 177.1 1.6% 2.8%2002 177.1 177.8 178.8 179.8 179.8 179.9 180.1 180.7 181.0 181.3 181.3 180.9 179.9 2.4% 1.6%2003 181.7 183.1 184.2 183.8 183.5 183.7 183.9 184.6 185.2 185.0 184.5 184.3 184.0 1.9% 2.3%2004 185.2 186.2 187.4 188.0 189.1 189.7 189.4 189.5 189.9 190.9 191.0 190.3 188.9 3.3% 2.7%2005 190.7 191.8 193.3 194.6 194.4 194.5 195.4 196.4 198.8 199.2 197.6 196.8 195.3 3.4% 3.4%2006 198.3 198.7 199.8 201.5 202.5 202.9 203.5 203.9 202.9 201.8 201.5 201.8 201.6 2.5% 3.2%2007 202.4 203.5 205.4 206.7 207.9 208.4 208.3 207.9 208.5 208.9 210.2 210.0 207.3 4.1% 2.9%2008 211.1 211.7 213.5 214.8 216.6 218.8 220.0 219.1 218.8 216.6 212.4 210.2 215.3 0.1% 3.8%2009 211.1 212.2 212.7 213.2 213.9 215.7 215.4 215.8 216.0 216.2 216.3 215.9 214.5 2.7% -0.4%2010 216.7 216.7 217.6 218.0 218.2 218.0 218.0 218.3 218.4 218.7 218.8 219.2 218.1 1.5% 1.6%2011 220.2 221.3 223.5 224.9 226.0 225.7 225.9 226.5 226.9 226.4 226.2 225.7 224.9 3.0% 3.2%2012e 226.7 227.7 229.4 230.1 229.8 229.5 229.1 230.4 231.4 230.5 230.2 229.9 229.5 2.0% 2.0%

e = estimate beginning October 2012

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; estimate provided by Office of Legislative Fiscal Analyst


Table 41 Gross Domestic Product Price Deflators: 2005=100

Gross PersonalDomestic Change Consumption Change

Product from Expenditures from(Chain-Type) Previous (Chain-Type) Previous

Year Deflator Year Deflator Year

1969 23.1 4.9% 22.6 4.5%1970 24.3 5.3% 23.7 4.7%1971 25.6 5.0% 24.7 4.2%1972 26.7 4.3% 25.5 3.4%1973 28.1 5.5% 26.9 5.4%1974 30.7 9.0% 29.7 10.4%1975 33.6 9.5% 32.2 8.4%1976 35.5 5.7% 34.0 5.5%1977 37.8 6.4% 36.2 6.5%1978 40.4 7.0% 38.7 7.0%1979 43.8 8.3% 42.1 8.9%1980 47.8 9.1% 46.7 10.7%1981 52.3 9.4% 50.8 8.9%1982 55.5 6.1% 53.6 5.5%1983 57.7 3.9% 55.9 4.3%1984 59.9 3.8% 58.1 3.8%1985 61.7 3.0% 60.0 3.3%1986 63.1 2.2% 61.4 2.4%1987 64.8 2.8% 63.6 3.6%1988 67.0 3.4% 66.2 4.0%1989 69.6 3.8% 69.0 4.3%1990 72.3 3.9% 72.2 4.6%1991 74.8 3.5% 74.8 3.6%1992 76.6 2.4% 77.0 2.9%1993 78.3 2.2% 78.7 2.2%1994 79.9 2.1% 80.3 2.1%1995 81.6 2.1% 82.1 2.2%1996 83.2 1.9% 83.9 2.2%1997 84.6 1.8% 85.4 1.9%1998 85.6 1.1% 86.2 1.0%1999 86.8 1.5% 87.6 1.6%2000 88.7 2.2% 89.8 2.5%2001 90.7 2.3% 91.5 1.9%2002 92.2 1.6% 92.8 1.4%2003 94.1 2.1% 94.7 2.0%2004 96.8 2.8% 97.1 2.6%2005 100.0 3.3% 100.0 3.0%2006 103.2 3.2% 102.7 2.7%2007 106.2 2.9% 105.5 2.7%2008 108.6 2.2% 108.9 3.3%2009 109.7 1.1% 109.2 0.2%2010 111.0 1.2% 111.1 1.8%2011 113.4 2.1% 113.8 2.5%

2012e 115.5 1.9% 115.9 1.8%

e = estimate

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, estimates by Global Insightand Legislative Fiscal Analyst

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 95 Regional / National Comparison UT

Population Growth Even though Utah only ranks 34th in terms of population size, it had the third fastest growing population in the nation. Between 2010 and 2011, Utah’s population grew by 1.5%. The U.S. population grew by 0.7% while the mountain states’ population grew by 1.1%. Of the mountain states, Utah had the fastest growth rate; Wyoming had the slowest growth with an increase of 0.6%. Also, Utah had the largest house-hold size in the nation in 2011, with 3.13 persons per house-hold, well above the national average of 2.64. Personal Income Growth Between 2006 and 2011, the average annual growth rate of total personal income in the mountain region was 2.8%, just below the national rate of 2.9%. Historically, personal in-come growth tended to be faster in the mountain states than in the rest of the nation, but this has recently changed. Be-tween 2006 and 2011, Utah’s personal income increased by an annual average of 4.0%, the tenth highest rate in the na-tion. Two of the mountain states—New Mexico and Utah—ranked in the top ten nationally for average annual personal income growth; three other mountain states were above the national average. However, Nevada’s slow growth rate (1.2%) ranked last in the nation. Growth in total personal income increased significantly in the mountain region be-tween 2010 and 2011, increasing by 5.1%, equal to the nation-al average. Between 2010 and 2011, personal income grew by 5.5% in Utah, which ranked 11th in the nation. During this same time period, three other mountain region states—

Arizona, Montana and Wyoming—had growth rate above or equal to the national average. Despite the rapid growth the mountain states experienced in the previous decade, total personal incomes of these states were still among the smallest in the United States in 2011. Using personal income as a measure of each state’s economic base shows that only Arizona and Colorado had economies larger than the median economy of the 50 states and District of Columbia ($157.6 billion). In 2011, Utah had the 35th largest economy with total personal income of $95.2 billion, placing it between Mississippi and Nebraska in relative size. Vermont had the smallest economy in 2011 ranking just be-low Wyoming and North Dakota. The mountain states produced $845.5 billion in personal in-come in 2011, or 6.5% of the nation’s total of $13.0 trillion. Utah accounted for 0.7% of the nation’s income and 11.3% of the mountain states’ income. It ranks fourth in the region, behind Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada. Utah’s per capita personal income in 2010 was $33,790, rank-ing it 46th in the nation. Utah often ranks low in per-capita measures because of the large number of children in the state. The state saw a slight decline in its ranking from 2006 when its per capita income was $31,035, ranking it 45th in the na-tion. The state’s per capita personal income annual growth rate from 2006 to 2011 averaged 1.7%, ranking 39th highest in the nation. The mountain region’s per capita personal income was $39,420 in 2011, representing 94.6% of the na-tional average ($41,663). This percentage has also fallen since 2006, when the mountain region’s per capita income was $36,544, representing 96.9% of the national average ($37,725). Median Household Income While Utah’s per capita income ranks low in the nation, its median household income ranks relatively high. The 2011 three-year average of median household income shows that Utah ranks 11th in the nation (the Census Bureau recom-mends using three-year averages for ranking purposes to re-duce the volatility that arises from small sample sizes). The discrepancy between the median household income ranking and per capita income ranking is largely explained by Utah’s young population as per capita figures are diluted by the large number of children living in the state and larger household sizes. In 2011, Utah’s three-year average median household income was $58,438 and represented 114.5% of the national average. This was the second highest median household in-come among mountain states, behind only Colorado. Despite Utah’s high median household income, it has recently experienced significant decline. The 2011 two-year average (the Census recommends using two-year averages when com-paring data over time) declined 4.9%, ranking 45th in the nation, and only above Nevada among the mountain states.

Regional / National Comparison

The national economy continued to grow in 2011, recovering slowly from the 2007-2009 recession. Utah’s economy grew faster than the nation’s, showing that its recovery continues to be more robust. Utah had one of the fastest growing pop-ulations in the nation in 2011, and its total personal income increased at faster rate than most states from 2006 to 2011. Employment levels in the mountain region slowly recovered between 2010 and 2011, and grew further between August of 2011 and August of 2012. In the most recent 12-month re-ports, Utah was ranked ninth in job growth in the nation. The mountain region as a whole has fared similarly to Utah, but there is a great deal of variation between the states. Total personal income increased in 2011 for each mountain state, but median household income declined for every state. Un-employment rates also decreased for every mountain state but Montana, where it remained stable. Utah’s unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the nation. Utah’s poverty rate continues to increase, but it is still the sixth lowest in the na-tion. Poverty rates also rose in all the other mountain states, and this region has some of the lowest poverty rates (Utah and Wyoming), and some of the highest (Arizona and Neva-da). Although Utah’s average annual pay per worker remains below the national average, its median household income and median family income rank above the national average.


As mentioned previously, Utah’s income ranking can change significantly based on the definition and sample being used. For instance, Utah’s 2011 three-year average median family income was $64,119; this was above the U.S. average of $62,674 and ranks Utah 22nd in the nation. Family income is based on the incomes of the householder and any other peo-ple living in the same household who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Family income does not count single-person households. Household income is based on the in-comes of the householder and any other people living in the same household, regardless of whether they are related. Be-cause many households consist of one person, household income is typically less than family income. The discrepancy between Utah’s median household income ranking 11th and median family income ranking 22nd is ex-plained by Utah’s high number of workers per household and few single-person households. Utah is ranked second in the nation in terms of workers per household, but only 26th in terms of workers per family. Having more workers per household contributes to higher incomes. Utah also has few-er single-person households compared to other states, which increases the state’s median household income. Average Annual Pay Another measure of income is the average annual pay of workers covered by unemployment insurance. Among the mountain states, only Colorado ($49,383) and Idaho ($49,082) were above the national average ($48,043) in 2011. Utah’s average annual pay of $40,279 per worker in 2011 was 83.8% of the national average and ranked 36th. Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, and Wyoming all ranked high-er than Utah, while Nevada and Montana ranked lower. The region also had some of the lowest average pay rates in the nation, with Nevada ranking 48th, and Montana 49th. One issue to keep in mind is that these annual pay figures are influenced by the number of part-time workers in each state. Data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and American Community Survey show Utah has one of the highest percentages of part-time workers in the United States. Because part-time workers typically earn less money than full-time workers, having a large part-time workforce can reduce the state’s average pay. For instance, in 2011 Utah’s average annual pay was 83.8% of the national average, but Utah’s three-year average earnings for full-time, year-round workers is actually much higher, at 94.0% of the national average. Utah’s lower incomes are also influenced by the state’s young working-age population. Nonfarm Payrolls The mountain states region experienced a decline in employ-ment (-1.0%) between 2006 and 2011, showing the region is still affected by the 2007-2009 recession. However, employ-ment increased by 1.1% in the mountain states between 2010 and 2011, and 1.2% nationally. Utah’s growth rate between 2010 and 2011 was 2.2%, ranking it first among the mountain states and third nationally.

The employment figures from August 2012 show continued growth (2.0%) in Utah’s employment from one year earlier. This ranks Utah ninth in the nation for job growth in that 12-month period. The mountain states also showed continued signs of growth, Arizona’s employment growth of 2.3% was the sixth fastest in the nation, and all other mountain states except New Mexico also experienced job growth. Between 2006 and 2011, every state experienced an increase in unemployment. Between 2010 and 2011, only three states saw an increase in unemployment. The national unemploy-ment rate declined from 9.6% in 2010 to 9.0% in 2011. Un-employment rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for all mountain states except Montana, where it remained stable. Utah’s unemployment rate for 2011 was 6.7%, a significant decline from the rate of 8.0% in 2010, but well above the 2006 rate of 3.0%. Even with the increase, Utah had the 13th-lowest unemployment rate in the nation in 2011. In August 2012, Utah’s unemployment rate decreased further to 5.6%, giving the state the eighth-lowest unemployment rate in the nation. The majority of states in the nation saw a de-crease in unemployment rates in the 12-month period be-tween August 2011 and August 2012. In August 2012, six of the mountain states had unemployment rates below the na-tional average: Wyoming (5.1%), Utah (5.6%), Montana (5.7%), New Mexico (6.4%), Idaho (6.9%) and Colorado (7.8%). Nevada (12.0%) had the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Poverty Rates Similar to median household income, the Census Bureau’s measure of poverty rates has considerable volatility and the Bureau suggests using three-year averages for ranking purpos-es and two-year averages to evaluate changes over time. There is a wide disparity in poverty rates among the mountain states; Nevada had the second highest poverty rate in the nation with 19.9% of its residents living below the poverty line, and Arizona (19.1%) was tied with the District of Co-lumbia for the third highest rate. Utah (10.2%) had the sixth-lowest poverty rate in the nation, and Wyoming (9.8%) had the third lowest. Despite this ranking, Utah’s poverty rate rose 0.7 percentage points from 9.9% for 2009-2010 to 10.5% for 2010-2011. Conclusion Utah experienced exceptional growth in the mid 2000s as the state rebounded from the 2001 recession at an amazing rate. The state is now recovering from the most recent recession. The recession affected the entire country, causing the econo-mies in every state to decline. Even with this decline, Utah still fared well compared to the rest of the nation, with lower poverty rates, comparatively low unemployment rates, and median household and family income levels which rank above the national average. These positive aspects may help Utah’s economy remain better off than most states as the country continues to recover from the national recession.


Figure 36 Population Annual Growth Rates for the United States and Mountain Division States: 2010-2011

Figure 37 Per Capita Income as a Percent of the United States Average for Mountain Division States: 2011

0.7%

1.1%

1.4%

0.9%

0.7% 0.7%

0.8%

1.5%

0.6%

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

U.S. Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming

Note: Numbers in this chart may differ from other tables due to different data sources. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

86.1%

105.8%

80.0%

87.8%91.6%

83.0% 81.1%

113.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming

Note: Numbers in this chart may differ from other tables due to different data sources. Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis


Figure 38 Median Household Income as a Percent of the United States for Mountain Division States: Three-Year Average, 2009-2011

Figure 39 Average Annual Pay as a Percent of the United States Average for Mountain Division States: 2011


94.7%

117.2%

94.8%

81.8%

100.5%

87.7%

114.5%

106.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%


92.8%

102.8% 102.2%

74.2% 74.5%

89.7%

83.8%

90.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


Note: For workers covered by unemployment insurance. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Figure 40 Nonfarm Employment Growth for the United States and Mountain Division States: August 2011 to August 2012

Figure 41 Percent of Persons in Poverty for the United States and Mountain Division States: Three-Year Average, 2009-2011

Note: Numbers in this chart may differ from other tables due to different data sources. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


1.4%

2.3%

1.4%

1.7%

1.3%

0.7%

-1.5%

2.0%1.9%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%


14.8%

19.1%

12.6%

14.4% 14.8%

19.9%

15.0%

10.2% 9.8%

0%

4%

8%

12%

16%

20%

24%



Table 42 Population and Households

Rate ofPopulation Change

Rank by Rank byAvg. Annual Persons Rank by Rank by Annual Persons perGrowth Rate 2011 per Population Population Growth Rate Household

Division/State 2006 2010 2011 2010-11 (thousands) Household 2010 2011 2010-2011 2011

United States 299,398,484 309,330,219 311,591,917 0.7% 114,991,725 2.64

Mountain States 20,845,987 22,133,139 22,373,411 1.1%Arizona 6,166,318 6,413,158 6,482,505 1.1% 2,356,055 2.69 16 16 9 9Colorado 4,753,377 5,047,692 5,116,796 1.4% 1,975,388 2.53 22 22 5 30Idaho 1,466,465 1,571,102 1,584,985 0.9% 580,193 2.68 39 39 16 10Montana 944,632 990,958 998,199 0.7% 404,250 2.4 44 44 23 47Nevada 2,495,529 2,704,283 2,723,322 0.7% 982,352 2.74 35 35 25 5New Mexico 1,954,599 2,065,913 2,082,224 0.8% 767,285 2.66 36 36 21 13Utah 2,550,063 2,775,479 2,817,222 1.5% 884,253 3.13 34 34 3 1Wyoming 515,004 564,554 568,158 0.6% 222,539 2.49 51 51 29 35

Other StatesAlabama 4,599,030 4,785,401 4,802,740 0.4% 1,844,546 2.54 23 23 36 26Alaska 670,053 714,146 722,718 1.2% 257,330 2.71 47 47 7 8Arkansas 2,810,872 2,921,588 2,937,979 0.6% 1,127,621 2.54 32 32 30 26California 36,457,549 37,338,198 37,691,912 0.9% 12,468,743 2.96 1 1 12 3Connecticut 3,504,809 3,575,498 3,580,709 0.1% 1,351,643 2.56 29 29 44 22Delaware 853,476 899,792 907,135 0.8% 333,192 2.65 45 45 20 14District of Columbia 581,530 604,912 617,996 2.2% 268,670 2.15 50 50 1 51Florida 18,089,888 18,838,613 19,057,542 1.2% 7,106,283 2.62 4 4 8 18Georgia 9,363,941 9,712,157 9,815,210 1.1% 3,494,542 2.74 9 9 10 5Hawaii 1,285,498 1,363,359 1,374,810 0.8% 448,563 2.97 40 40 18 2Illinois 12,831,970 12,841,980 12,869,257 0.2% 4,737,208 2.65 5 5 42 14Indiana 6,313,520 6,490,622 6,516,922 0.4% 2,467,111 2.57 15 15 34 20Iowa 2,982,085 3,050,202 3,062,309 0.4% 1,216,765 2.44 30 30 35 44Kansas 2,764,075 2,859,143 2,871,238 0.4% 1,101,701 2.53 33 33 33 30Kentucky 4,206,074 4,347,223 4,369,356 0.5% 1,672,134 2.54 26 26 31 26Louisiana 4,287,768 4,545,343 4,574,836 0.6% 1,702,030 2.61 25 25 27 19Maine 1,321,574 1,327,379 1,328,188 0.1% 552,051 2.34 41 41 47 48Maryland 5,615,727 5,785,681 5,828,289 0.7% 2,134,517 2.67 19 19 22 11Massachusetts 6,437,193 6,555,466 6,587,536 0.5% 2,532,067 2.51 14 14 32 33Michigan 10,095,643 9,877,143 9,876,187 0.0% 3,772,433 2.56 8 8 50 22Minnesota 5,167,101 5,310,658 5,344,861 0.6% 2,096,477 2.48 21 21 28 38Mississippi 2,910,540 2,970,072 2,978,512 0.3% 1,080,991 2.67 31 31 39 11Missouri 5,842,713 5,995,715 6,010,688 0.2% 2,341,074 2.49 18 18 40 35Nebraska 1,768,331 1,830,141 1,842,641 0.7% 723,800 2.48 38 38 26 38New Hampshire 1,314,895 1,316,807 1,318,194 0.1% 516,454 2.47 42 42 45 41New Jersey 8,724,560 8,799,593 8,821,155 0.2% 3,167,629 2.73 11 11 41 7New York 19,306,183 19,395,206 19,465,197 0.4% 7,187,938 2.63 3 3 37 16North Carolina 8,856,505 9,560,234 9,656,401 1.0% 3,683,364 2.55 10 10 11 24North Dakota 635,867 674,629 683,932 1.4% 283,440 2.32 48 48 4 50Ohio 11,478,006 11,537,968 11,544,951 0.1% 4,538,555 2.48 7 7 48 38Oklahoma 3,579,212 3,760,184 3,791,508 0.8% 1,442,731 2.55 28 28 19 24Oregon 3,700,758 3,838,332 3,871,859 0.9% 1,516,979 2.5 27 27 17 34Pennsylvania 12,440,621 12,717,722 12,742,886 0.2% 4,937,333 2.49 6 6 43 35Rhode Island 1,067,610 1,052,528 1,051,302 -0.1% 412,259 2.45 43 43 51 43South Carolina 4,321,249 4,637,106 4,679,230 0.9% 1,768,834 2.57 24 24 14 20South Dakota 781,919 816,598 824,082 0.9% 323,215 2.44 46 46 13 44Tennessee 6,038,803 6,357,436 6,403,353 0.7% 2,467,428 2.53 17 17 24 30Texas 23,507,783 25,253,466 25,674,681 1.7% 8,850,370 2.84 2 2 2 4Vermont 623,908 625,909 626,431 0.1% 257,358 2.34 49 49 46 48Virginia 7,642,884 8,023,953 8,096,604 0.9% 2,990,650 2.63 12 12 15 16Washington 6,395,798 6,742,950 6,830,038 1.3% 2,632,621 2.54 13 13 6 26West Virginia 1,818,470 1,854,368 1,855,364 0.1% 735,408 2.46 37 37 49 42Wisconsin 5,556,506 5,691,659 5,711,767 0.4% 2,275,352 2.44 20 20 38 44

Sources: 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements 2. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

RankingsHouseholds

Population(July 1 Estimate)


Table 43 Total Personal Income

Rank by Rank by1st 1st Total Rank by Rank by Percent

Avg. Ann. Percent Quarter Quarter Percent Personal Avg. Ann. Percent Change2006 2010 2011 Growth Rate Change 2011 2012 Change Income Growth Rate Change 1st Qtr

Division/State (millions) (millions) (millions) 2006-11 2010-11 (millions) (millions) 2011-12 2011 2006-2011 2010-11 2011-12

United States $11,256,516 $12,353,577 $12,981,741 2.9% 5.1% $12,823,267 $13,194,047 2.9%

Mountain States 736,457 804,255 845,498 2.8% 5.1% 833,575 861,426 3.3%Arizona 206,958 221,503 232,560 2.4% 5.0% 229,637 237,136 3.3% 18 43 25 20Colorado 194,390 213,494 225,591 3.0% 5.7% 222,051 230,055 3.6% 22 28 8 16Idaho 46,253 50,114 52,821 2.7% 5.4% 52,120 53,774 3.2% 41 36 12 22Montana 30,447 34,736 36,507 3.7% 5.1% 35,999 37,785 5.0% 46 14 19 3Nevada 97,844 99,892 103,957 1.2% 4.1% 102,689 104,567 1.8% 32 51 48 49New Mexico 59,274 68,882 71,993 4.0% 4.5% 70,995 73,030 2.9% 37 9 38 31Utah 78,378 90,250 95,194 4.0% 5.5% 93,684 97,361 3.9% 35 10 11 8Wyoming 22,912 25,383 26,875 3.2% 5.9% 26,400 27,718 5.0% 50 23 7 2

Other StatesAlabama 144,463 160,332 166,414 2.9% 3.8% 164,878 168,980 2.5% 25 35 50 39Alaska 26,304 31,589 32,905 4.6% 4.2% 32,480 33,808 4.1% 48 4 47 7Arkansas 82,918 95,844 99,933 3.8% 4.3% 98,919 101,293 2.4% 33 11 44 41California 1,495,533 1,587,404 1,676,565 2.3% 5.6% 1,658,398 1,699,970 2.5% 1 45 10 38Connecticut 184,049 193,932 203,703 2.1% 5.0% 201,667 205,092 1.7% 23 48 22 50Delaware 33,350 36,079 37,769 2.5% 4.7% 37,352 38,446 2.9% 45 41 32 27District of Columbia 34,787 42,773 45,178 5.4% 5.6% 44,486 46,175 3.8% 44 2 9 11Florida 690,268 719,828 753,983 1.8% 4.7% 744,882 762,258 2.3% 4 49 30 44Georgia 311,855 337,468 354,372 2.6% 5.0% 351,200 357,624 1.8% 11 40 24 48Hawaii 49,124 56,647 59,190 3.8% 4.5% 58,592 60,677 3.6% 40 12 39 17Illinois 504,493 539,880 568,049 2.4% 5.2% 561,830 575,160 2.4% 5 42 17 42Indiana 206,868 220,555 231,674 2.3% 5.0% 228,789 235,842 3.1% 19 46 21 25Iowa 100,573 116,027 123,933 4.3% 6.8% 122,044 126,447 3.6% 30 6 2 15Kansas 98,577 111,441 116,230 3.3% 4.3% 114,922 117,202 2.0% 31 18 43 47Kentucky 126,719 140,483 147,103 3.0% 4.7% 145,328 150,214 3.4% 27 27 31 19Louisiana 143,223 168,356 176,489 4.3% 4.8% 173,599 178,307 2.7% 24 7 28 34Maine 44,307 48,799 50,435 2.6% 3.4% 50,180 51,358 2.3% 42 38 51 43Maryland 252,431 283,634 297,465 3.3% 4.9% 293,451 302,004 2.9% 15 19 27 29Massachusetts 304,855 336,320 353,228 3.0% 5.0% 347,944 357,831 2.8% 12 30 23 32Michigan 334,858 342,874 360,806 1.5% 5.2% 358,928 369,422 2.9% 10 50 16 28Minnesota 205,857 227,288 238,768 3.0% 5.1% 236,792 243,024 2.6% 16 29 20 36Mississippi 81,098 92,284 95,835 3.4% 3.8% 94,709 96,308 1.7% 34 17 49 51Missouri 198,727 220,635 229,898 3.0% 4.2% 227,082 233,642 2.9% 20 31 46 30Nebraska 62,810 72,353 76,624 4.1% 5.9% 75,606 78,562 3.9% 36 8 6 9New Hampshire 53,765 57,542 60,356 2.3% 4.9% 59,463 61,378 3.2% 39 44 26 21New Jersey 411,429 450,004 469,115 2.7% 4.2% 463,760 475,702 2.6% 7 37 45 37New York 851,437 942,523 983,868 2.9% 4.4% 976,473 999,909 2.4% 3 32 40 40North Carolina 297,596 334,677 349,212 3.3% 4.3% 345,701 353,737 2.3% 13 22 41 45North Dakota 21,375 28,935 31,288 7.9% 8.1% 30,408 33,396 9.8% 49 1 1 1Ohio 390,457 417,235 436,297 2.2% 4.6% 430,922 446,838 3.7% 8 47 37 14Oklahoma 118,749 133,070 141,335 3.5% 6.2% 138,285 144,947 4.8% 29 16 4 4Oregon 127,403 139,395 146,778 2.9% 5.3% 144,988 149,356 3.0% 28 34 15 26Pennsylvania 462,704 516,390 541,297 3.2% 4.8% 533,616 550,249 3.1% 6 25 29 23Rhode Island 40,664 44,200 46,248 2.6% 4.6% 45,404 46,674 2.8% 43 39 36 33South Carolina 134,197 150,528 157,565 3.3% 4.7% 155,610 159,826 2.7% 26 21 33 35South Dakota 26,582 32,271 34,274 5.2% 6.2% 33,797 35,371 4.7% 47 3 5 5Tennessee 200,227 222,007 233,933 3.2% 5.4% 230,201 237,948 3.4% 17 26 13 18Texas 824,281 953,254 1,016,529 4.3% 6.6% 997,651 1,035,329 3.8% 2 5 3 12Vermont 22,341 25,120 26,205 3.2% 4.3% 25,935 26,903 3.7% 51 24 42 13Virginia 316,298 355,193 371,796 3.3% 4.7% 368,037 379,456 3.1% 9 20 34 24Washington 252,091 287,175 302,529 3.7% 5.3% 297,934 311,292 4.5% 14 13 14 6West Virginia 51,862 59,417 62,178 3.7% 4.6% 61,093 63,468 3.9% 38 15 35 10Wisconsin 198,556 217,562 228,888 2.9% 5.2% 226,355 231,199 2.1% 21 33 18 46

Note: saar = seasonally adjusted annual rate

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, State Annual Personal Income

Total Personal Income

Rates of Total Personal Income RankingsTotal Personal (saar)

Income Change


Table 44 Per Capita Personal Income

Rank by Rank by Rank byPer Capita Average Average

Avg. Ann. Percent Personal Annual AnnualGrowth Rate Change Income Growth Rate Growth Rate

Division/State 2006 2010 2011 2006-11 2010-11 2006 2010 2011 2011 2006-11 2010-11

United States $37,725 $39,937 $41,663 2.0% 4.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mountain States 36,544 37,807 39,420 1.5% 4.3% 96.9% 94.7% 94.6%Arizona 34,326 34,539 35,875 0.9% 3.9% 91.0% 86.5% 86.1% 41 49 36Colorado 41,181 42,295 44,088 1.4% 4.2% 109.2% 105.9% 105.8% 16 46 25Idaho 31,493 31,897 33,326 1.1% 4.5% 83.5% 79.9% 80.0% 50 48 21Montana 31,959 35,053 36,573 2.7% 4.3% 84.7% 87.8% 87.8% 36 16 24Nevada 38,786 36,938 38,173 -0.3% 3.3% 102.8% 92.5% 91.6% 31 51 48New Mexico 30,209 33,342 34,575 2.7% 3.7% 80.1% 83.5% 83.0% 44 15 41Utah 31,035 32,517 33,790 1.7% 3.9% 82.3% 81.4% 81.1% 46 39 34Wyoming 43,836 44,961 47,301 1.5% 5.2% 116.2% 112.6% 113.5% 7 43 6

Other StatesAlabama 31,208 33,504 34,650 2.1% 3.4% 82.7% 83.9% 83.2% 43 34 46Alaska 38,951 44,233 45,529 3.2% 2.9% 103.2% 110.8% 109.3% 11 7 51Arkansas 29,385 32,805 34,014 3.0% 3.7% 77.9% 82.1% 81.6% 45 10 42California 41,518 42,514 44,481 1.4% 4.6% 110.1% 106.5% 106.8% 13 45 14Connecticut 52,324 54,239 56,889 1.7% 4.9% 138.7% 135.8% 136.5% 2 41 10District of Columbia 38,812 40,097 41,635 1.4% 3.8% 102.9% 100.4% 99.9% 21 44 38Delaware 60,957 70,710 73,105 3.7% 3.4% 161.6% 177.1% 175.5% 1 4 47Florida 37,996 38,210 39,563 0.8% 3.5% 100.7% 95.7% 95.0% 28 50 45Georgia 34,061 34,747 36,104 1.2% 3.9% 90.3% 87.0% 86.7% 40 47 35Hawaii 37,507 41,550 43,053 2.8% 3.6% 99.4% 104.0% 103.3% 18 14 43Illinois 39,900 42,040 44,140 2.0% 5.0% 105.8% 105.3% 105.9% 15 35 8Indiana 32,667 33,981 35,550 1.7% 4.6% 86.6% 85.1% 85.3% 42 40 15Iowa 33,719 38,039 40,470 3.7% 6.4% 89.4% 95.2% 97.1% 25 3 2Kansas 35,678 38,977 40,481 2.6% 3.9% 94.6% 97.6% 97.2% 24 18 37Kentucky 30,034 32,316 33,667 2.3% 4.2% 79.6% 80.9% 80.8% 48 26 27Louisiana 33,287 37,039 38,578 3.0% 4.2% 88.2% 92.7% 92.6% 29 9 28Maine 33,474 36,763 37,973 2.6% 3.3% 88.7% 92.1% 91.1% 32 19 50Maryland 44,858 49,023 51,038 2.6% 4.1% 118.9% 122.8% 122.5% 5 17 29Massachusetts 47,559 51,304 53,621 2.4% 4.5% 126.1% 128.5% 128.7% 3 22 19Michigan 33,365 34,714 36,533 1.8% 5.2% 88.4% 86.9% 87.7% 37 36 5Minnesota 39,867 42,798 44,672 2.3% 4.4% 105.7% 107.2% 107.2% 12 27 23Mississippi 27,917 31,071 32,176 2.9% 3.6% 74.0% 77.8% 77.2% 51 11 44Missouri 34,013 36,799 38,248 2.4% 3.9% 90.2% 92.1% 91.8% 30 24 33Nebraska 35,432 39,534 41,584 3.3% 5.2% 93.9% 99.0% 99.8% 23 6 7New Hampshire 41,092 43,698 45,787 2.2% 4.8% 108.9% 109.4% 109.9% 9 30 12New Jersey 47,500 51,139 53,181 2.3% 4.0% 125.9% 128.0% 127.6% 4 28 32New York 44,567 48,596 50,545 2.5% 4.0% 118.1% 121.7% 121.3% 6 20 30North Carolina 33,373 35,007 36,164 1.6% 3.3% 88.5% 87.7% 86.8% 39 42 49North Dakota 32,914 42,890 45,747 6.8% 6.7% 87.2% 107.4% 109.8% 10 1 1Ohio 34,008 36,162 37,791 2.1% 4.5% 90.1% 90.5% 90.7% 34 32 20Oklahoma 33,040 35,389 37,277 2.4% 5.3% 87.6% 88.6% 89.5% 35 21 3Oregon 34,706 36,317 37,909 1.8% 4.4% 92.0% 90.9% 91.0% 33 38 22Pennsylvania 36,984 40,604 42,478 2.8% 4.6% 98.0% 101.7% 102.0% 19 13 17Rhode Island 38,251 41,995 43,992 2.8% 4.8% 101.4% 105.2% 105.6% 17 12 13South Carolina 30,794 32,462 33,673 1.8% 3.7% 81.6% 81.3% 80.8% 47 37 40South Dakota 33,948 39,519 41,590 4.1% 5.2% 90.0% 99.0% 99.8% 22 2 4Tennessee 32,885 34,921 36,533 2.1% 4.6% 87.2% 87.4% 87.7% 37 33 16Texas 35,287 37,747 39,593 2.3% 4.9% 93.5% 94.5% 95.0% 27 25 9Vermont 35,867 40,134 41,832 3.1% 4.2% 95.1% 100.5% 100.4% 20 8 26Virginia 41,218 44,267 45,920 2.2% 3.7% 109.3% 110.8% 110.2% 8 31 39Washington 39,570 42,589 44,294 2.3% 4.0% 104.9% 106.6% 106.3% 14 29 31West Virginia 28,372 32,042 33,513 3.4% 4.6% 75.2% 80.2% 80.4% 49 5 18Wisconsin 35,598 38,225 40,073 2.4% 4.8% 94.4% 95.7% 96.2% 26 23 11

Note: Mountain States average calculated by Utah Foundation, individual states calculated by BEA.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, State Annual Personal Income

Personal Income Personal Income

Income as a Percent

RankingsPer Capita Personal

Per Capita of U.S. Per Capita


Table 45 Median Income of Households

2006 2010 2011 2009-10Two-year Average Amount As a %

Division/State Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount Difference % Chg. Amount Rank of the U.S.

United States $53,768 $50,831 $50,054 $51,513 $50,443 $254 -$1,071 -2.1% $51,027 $244 100.0%

Mountain StatesArizona 52,046 48,375 48,621 48,168 48,498 2,074 330 0.7% 48,319 1,889 31 94.7%Colorado 62,130 62,133 58,629 60,390 60,381 2,186 -9 0.0% 59,803 1,931 8 117.2%Idaho 51,551 48,535 47,459 48,793 47,997 2,500 -796 -1.6% 48,348 2,529 30 94.8%Montana 45,853 42,582 40,277 42,492 41,430 1,656 -1,062 -2.5% 41,753 1,443 48 81.8%Nevada 58,321 52,815 47,043 53,374 49,929 2,023 -3,445 -6.5% 51,263 1,745 26 100.5%New Mexico 44,651 46,558 41,982 46,108 44,270 2,294 -1,838 -4.0% 44,732 1,976 42 87.7%Utah 60,938 58,489 55,493 59,911 56,991 1,574 -2,920 -4.9% 58,438 1,667 11 114.5%Wyoming 52,474 53,847 54,509 54,433 54,178 2,015 -255 -0.5% 54,458 2,366 17 106.7%

Other StatesAlabama 42,336 42,224 42,590 42,073 42,407 2,076 334 0.8% 42,245 1,792 46 82.8%Alaska 62,934 59,672 57,431 62,134 58,552 2,556 -3,583 -5.8% 60,566 2,074 7 118.7%Arkansas 41,337 39,804 41,302 39,059 40,553 2,038 1,495 3.8% 39,806 1,882 50 78.0%California 61,708 55,995 53,367 57,428 54,681 1,133 -2,747 -4.8% 56,074 924 14 109.9%Connecticut 69,612 68,080 65,415 68,041 66,748 2,252 -1,293 -1.9% 67,165 2,112 3 131.6%Delaware 58,495 56,956 54,660 55,801 55,808 1,691 8 0.0% 55,420 1,643 15 108.6%District of Columbia 54,076 58,724 55,251 57,223 56,988 2,226 -236 -0.4% 56,566 1,959 13 110.9%Florida 50,952 45,456 45,105 46,652 45,281 1,172 -1,371 -2.9% 46,136 1,014 39 90.4%Georgia 55,043 45,509 45,973 45,477 45,741 1,916 264 0.6% 45,642 1,756 40 89.4%Hawaii 67,454 61,417 59,047 59,885 60,232 2,160 348 0.6% 59,605 2,026 9 116.8%Illinois 54,293 52,328 50,637 53,883 51,483 1,242 -2,401 -4.5% 52,801 1,068 20 103.5%Indiana 50,652 47,595 44,445 47,026 46,020 2,225 -1,006 -2.1% 46,166 1,876 38 90.5%Iowa 53,685 50,562 50,219 51,874 50,391 1,431 -1,483 -2.9% 51,322 1,600 25 100.6%Kansas 50,813 47,506 46,147 47,198 46,827 1,666 -371 -0.8% 46,847 1,956 36 91.8%Kentucky 44,046 42,401 39,856 43,569 41,129 2,196 -2,440 -5.6% 42,331 1,825 45 83.0%Louisiana 40,702 40,540 40,658 44,090 40,599 2,232 -3,491 -7.9% 42,946 2,438 43 84.2%Maine 50,914 49,442 49,693 49,626 49,568 1,549 -58 -0.1% 49,648 1,542 28 97.3%Maryland 71,022 66,226 68,876 66,765 67,551 1,956 786 1.2% 67,469 1,681 1 132.2%Massachusetts 61,721 62,856 63,313 62,557 63,085 2,312 528 0.8% 62,809 2,131 5 123.1%Michigan 54,266 47,736 48,879 47,982 48,308 1,573 326 0.7% 48,281 1,576 32 94.6%Minnesota 62,703 53,972 57,820 56,393 55,896 1,802 -497 -0.9% 56,869 1,410 12 111.4%Mississippi 38,745 39,363 41,090 38,073 40,227 2,442 2,154 5.7% 39,078 1,919 51 76.6%Missouri 49,728 47,262 45,774 49,200 46,518 1,925 -2,682 -5.5% 48,058 1,797 33 94.2%Nebraska 53,706 54,160 55,616 53,082 54,888 1,901 1,806 3.4% 53,927 1,572 18 105.7%New Hampshire 69,128 68,735 65,880 67,991 67,308 1,457 -683 -1.0% 67,287 1,518 2 131.9%New Jersey 75,920 64,954 62,338 66,439 63,646 2,369 -2,793 -4.2% 65,072 2,150 4 127.5%New York 53,792 51,351 50,636 52,003 50,994 939 -1,010 -1.9% 51,547 807 24 101.0%North Carolina 44,394 45,213 45,206 44,577 45,210 1,518 633 1.4% 44,787 1,227 41 87.8%North Dakota 45,788 52,614 56,361 52,561 54,488 2,454 1,927 3.7% 53,827 2,310 19 105.5%Ohio 51,202 47,333 44,648 47,720 45,991 1,144 -1,730 -3.6% 46,696 1,027 37 91.5%Oklahoma 43,324 44,463 48,455 46,285 46,459 1,849 175 0.4% 47,008 1,794 35 92.1%Oregon 52,530 52,198 51,526 51,841 51,862 1,340 22 0.0% 51,736 1,498 23 101.4%Pennsylvania 54,076 49,838 49,910 50,175 49,874 1,393 -301 -0.6% 50,087 1,241 27 98.2%Rhode Island 59,943 53,252 49,033 53,697 51,143 1,732 -2,555 -4.8% 52,142 1,505 22 102.2%South Carolina 44,193 43,014 40,084 43,056 41,549 1,311 -1,507 -3.5% 42,065 1,167 47 82.4%South Dakota 50,674 46,783 47,223 47,418 47,003 1,839 -415 -0.9% 47,353 1,626 34 92.8%Tennessee 45,393 39,809 42,279 41,147 41,044 1,637 -103 -0.3% 41,524 1,623 49 81.4%Texas 48,309 48,757 49,047 49,269 48,902 1,027 -367 -0.7% 49,195 924 29 96.4%Vermont 57,985 57,692 51,862 56,276 54,777 1,828 -1,499 -2.7% 54,804 1,567 16 107.4%Virginia 63,716 62,271 62,616 62,856 62,444 1,735 -412 -0.7% 62,776 1,702 6 123.0%Washington 61,044 57,934 56,850 60,630 57,392 1,793 -3,238 -5.3% 59,370 1,743 10 116.4%West Virginia 42,856 44,126 41,821 43,292 42,974 1,881 -318 -0.7% 42,801 1,567 44 83.9%Wisconsin 57,663 51,939 52,058 52,833 51,999 1,639 -834 -1.6% 52,574 1,396 21 103.0%

*Because the sample of households contacted in small population states like Utah is relatively few in number, the data collected for two or three years are combined to calculate less variable estimates. The Census Bureau recommends using two-year averages for evaluating changes in state estimates over time, and three-year averages when comparing the relative ranking of states.

**"90% confidence interval +/-" is a measurement of sampling variability for that average.Note that the confidence intervals for U.S. estimates are much smaller than those for the states, because larger samples sizes produce more accurateestimates.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements

90% conf. int +/- **

90% conf. int +/- **

Median Income of Households Median Income of Households (2011 Dollars) Median Income of Households (2011 Dollars)(2011 Dollars) Two-year Moving Average* Three-year Average*

2010-11 2009-11


Table 46 Median Household Income and Median Family Income

Workers Per Workers PerAs a % As a % Household** Family**

Division/State 2009 2010 2011 Amount of the U.S. Rank 2009 2010 2011 Amount of the U.S. Rank 2011 2011

United States $52,195 $50,831 $50,054 $51,027 100.0% $64,044 $62,522 $61,455 $62,674 100.0% 1.37 2.07

Mountain StatesArizona 47,961 48,375 48,621 48,319 94.7% 31 60,660 57,100 55,328 57,696 92.1% 36 1.29 1.97Colorado 58,647 62,133 58,629 59,803 117.2% 8 72,286 69,940 69,110 70,445 112.4% 13 1.41 2.21Idaho 49,050 48,535 47,459 48,348 94.8% 30 54,365 53,994 52,814 53,724 85.7% 43 1.32 1.91Montana 42,401 42,582 40,277 41,753 81.8% 48 57,677 56,228 56,217 56,707 90.5% 38 1.30 2.07Nevada 53,932 52,815 47,043 51,263 100.5% 26 63,778 62,092 56,544 60,805 97.0% 28 1.42 2.18New Mexico 45,657 46,558 41,982 44,732 87.7% 42 54,515 52,630 51,744 52,963 84.5% 45 1.29 1.97Utah 61,332 58,489 55,493 58,438 114.5% 11 65,986 63,563 62,809 64,119 102.3% 22 1.56 2.08Wyoming 55,019 53,847 54,509 54,458 106.7% 17 68,709 67,919 68,629 68,419 109.2% 15 1.38 2.16

Other StatesAlabama 41,922 42,224 42,590 42,245 82.8% 46 53,241 52,021 51,991 52,418 83.6% 47 1.22 1.80Alaska 64,596 59,672 57,431 60,566 118.7% 7 83,810 79,391 75,786 79,662 127.1% 5 1.53 2.28Arkansas 38,313 39,804 41,302 39,806 78.0% 50 49,140 48,534 48,713 48,796 77.9% 50 1.21 1.81California 58,861 55,995 53,367 56,074 109.9% 14 70,288 67,548 65,476 67,771 108.1% 17 1.51 2.22Connecticut 68,001 68,080 65,415 67,165 131.6% 3 87,097 83,811 83,106 84,671 135.1% 3 1.45 2.19Delaware 54,645 56,956 54,660 55,420 108.6% 15 70,859 70,916 69,663 70,479 112.5% 12 1.40 2.05District of Columbia 55,722 58,724 55,251 56,566 110.9% 13 74,661 79,961 75,603 76,741 122.4% 8 1.31 3.09Florida 47,847 45,456 45,105 46,136 90.4% 39 56,103 54,769 53,958 54,943 87.7% 40 1.31 2.04Georgia 45,445 45,509 45,973 45,642 89.4% 40 58,900 56,952 55,001 56,951 90.9% 37 1.38 2.03Hawaii 58,352 61,417 59,047 59,605 116.8% 9 78,706 78,537 74,234 77,159 123.1% 6 1.60 2.30Illinois 55,438 52,328 50,637 52,801 103.5% 20 70,045 67,482 65,579 67,702 108.0% 18 1.41 2.16Indiana 46,457 47,595 44,445 46,166 90.5% 38 59,168 57,116 57,148 57,811 92.2% 35 1.32 1.99Iowa 53,185 50,562 50,219 51,322 100.6% 25 64,121 62,840 62,821 63,261 100.9% 24 1.35 2.09Kansas 46,889 47,506 46,147 46,847 91.8% 36 63,951 62,939 61,947 62,946 100.4% 26 1.38 2.10Kentucky 44,736 42,401 39,856 42,331 83.0% 45 52,216 51,983 51,917 52,038 83.0% 48 1.24 1.84Louisiana 47,640 40,540 40,658 42,946 84.2% 43 56,017 54,112 53,601 54,577 87.1% 41 1.29 1.96Maine 49,809 49,442 49,693 49,648 97.3% 28 59,309 60,034 58,375 59,239 94.5% 30 1.28 2.03Maryland 67,304 66,226 68,876 67,469 132.2% 1 88,339 85,761 83,823 85,974 137.2% 1 1.50 2.26Massachusetts 62,257 62,856 63,313 62,809 123.1% 5 84,962 81,136 80,425 82,174 131.1% 4 1.43 2.27Michigan 48,228 47,736 48,879 48,281 94.6% 32 59,429 57,872 58,068 58,456 93.3% 33 1.28 1.95Minnesota 58,814 53,972 57,820 56,869 111.4% 12 72,738 71,823 71,321 71,960 114.8% 10 1.41 2.18Mississippi 36,782 39,363 41,090 39,078 76.6% 51 47,812 46,920 46,304 47,012 75.0% 51 1.24 1.81Missouri 51,138 47,262 45,774 48,058 94.2% 33 59,049 57,988 56,616 57,884 92.4% 34 1.30 1.98Nebraska 52,004 54,160 55,616 53,927 105.7% 18 63,016 62,732 63,491 63,080 100.6% 25 1.40 2.15New Hampshire 67,246 68,735 65,880 67,287 131.9% 2 77,437 76,990 76,609 77,012 122.9% 7 1.43 2.11New Jersey 67,923 64,954 62,338 65,072 127.5% 4 87,424 85,029 82,255 84,903 135.5% 2 1.47 2.13New York 52,655 51,351 50,636 51,547 101.0% 24 70,134 67,977 66,852 68,321 109.0% 16 1.38 2.16North Carolina 43,941 45,213 45,206 44,787 87.8% 41 56,920 54,590 54,082 55,198 88.1% 39 1.31 1.97North Dakota 52,507 52,614 56,361 53,827 105.5% 19 66,586 67,265 66,924 66,925 106.8% 19 1.37 2.21Ohio 48,107 47,333 44,648 46,696 91.5% 37 60,141 58,302 58,565 59,003 94.1% 31 1.28 2.00Oklahoma 48,106 44,463 48,455 47,008 92.1% 35 54,944 53,598 53,742 54,095 86.3% 42 1.27 1.92Oregon 51,483 52,198 51,526 51,736 101.4% 23 62,043 58,450 58,356 59,616 95.1% 29 1.28 2.03Pennsylvania 50,512 49,838 49,910 50,087 98.2% 27 65,200 63,844 63,283 64,109 102.3% 23 1.31 2.02Rhode Island 54,142 53,252 49,033 52,142 102.2% 22 72,712 69,955 69,604 70,757 112.9% 11 1.39 2.24South Carolina 43,097 43,014 40,084 42,065 82.4% 47 54,947 53,336 52,240 53,508 85.4% 44 1.28 1.89South Dakota 48,052 46,783 47,223 47,353 92.8% 34 60,565 61,881 62,059 61,501 98.1% 27 1.37 2.11Tennessee 42,485 39,809 42,279 41,524 81.4% 49 53,833 52,695 52,273 52,934 84.5% 46 1.27 1.93Texas 49,781 48,757 49,047 49,195 96.4% 29 59,352 58,361 58,016 58,576 93.5% 32 1.43 2.04Vermont 54,859 57,692 51,862 54,804 107.4% 16 66,561 64,550 66,190 65,767 104.9% 20 1.36 2.17Virginia 63,440 62,271 62,616 62,776 123.0% 6 74,726 74,764 74,500 74,663 119.1% 9 1.43 2.13Washington 63,325 57,934 56,850 59,370 116.4% 10 71,674 69,453 68,628 69,919 111.6% 14 1.34 2.08West Virginia 42,457 44,126 41,821 42,801 83.9% 44 49,970 50,471 49,693 50,045 79.8% 49 1.12 1.72Wisconsin 53,726 51,939 52,058 52,574 103.0% 21 65,675 64,048 63,732 64,485 102.9% 21 1.35 2.10

*The three-year average is the sum of three inflation-adjusted single-years divided by three. Amounts are inflation-adjusted using CPI-U-RS. Calculations by Utah Foundation. Becausethe sample of households contacted in small population states like Utah is relatively few in number, the data collected for two or three years are combined to calculate less variableestimates. The Census Bureau recommends using two-year averages for evaluating changes in state estimates over time, and three-year averages when comparing the relative rankingof states.

**Workers per Household and Workers per Family calculated by Utah Foundation.

Sources: 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements 2. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Median Household Income(2011 Dollars) Three-year Average*

Median Family Income (2011 Dollars)Three-year Average*

2009-11Median Household Income Median Family Income

(2011 Dollars) 2009-2011 (2011 Dollars)


Table 47 Average Annual Pay for All Workers Covered by Unemployment Insurance

Rank by Rank by Rank byAvg. Ann. Percent Average Avg. Ann. Percent

Growth Rate Change Annual Pay Growth Rate ChangeDivision/State 2006 2010 2011 2006-11 2010-11 2006 2010 2011 2011 2006-11 2010-11

United States $42,535 $46,751 $48,043 2.5% 2.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Mountain StatesArizona 40,019 43,299 44,581 2.2% 3.0% 94.1% 92.6% 92.8% 21 41 14Colorado 41,750 48,230 49,383 3.4% 2.4% 98.2% 103.2% 102.8% 12 4 32Idaho 43,506 47,868 49,082 2.4% 2.5% 102.3% 102.4% 102.2% 13 28 25Montana 32,580 34,900 35,626 1.8% 2.1% 76.6% 74.7% 74.2% 49 48 41Nevada 30,596 34,595 35,791 3.2% 3.5% 71.9% 74.0% 74.5% 48 7 7New Mexico 40,070 42,512 43,102 1.5% 1.4% 94.2% 90.9% 89.7% 23 51 51Utah 35,130 39,389 40,279 2.8% 2.3% 82.6% 84.3% 83.8% 36 16 36Wyoming 36,662 41,963 43,394 3.4% 3.4% 86.2% 89.8% 90.3% 22 3 8

Other StatesAlabama 36,204 40,289 41,186 2.6% 2.2% 85.1% 86.2% 85.7% 33 20 37Alaska 32,389 36,254 37,280 2.9% 2.8% 76.1% 77.5% 77.6% 47 12 18Arkansas 48,345 53,285 55,013 2.6% 3.2% 113.7% 114.0% 114.5% 6 19 11California 54,814 59,465 61,145 2.2% 2.8% 128.9% 127.2% 127.3% 3 38 19Connecticut 46,285 48,669 50,499 1.8% 3.8% 108.8% 104.1% 105.1% 10 49 5Delaware 70,151 80,200 81,529 3.1% 1.7% 164.9% 171.5% 169.7% 1 9 50District of Columbia 38,485 41,581 42,313 1.9% 1.8% 90.5% 88.9% 88.1% 29 47 49Florida 40,370 43,899 45,090 2.2% 2.7% 94.9% 93.9% 93.9% 20 36 22Georgia 37,799 41,709 42,473 2.4% 1.8% 88.9% 89.2% 88.4% 26 32 47Hawaii 45,650 49,497 50,840 2.2% 2.7% 107.3% 105.9% 105.8% 8 44 21Illinois 36,553 39,256 40,248 1.9% 2.5% 85.9% 84.0% 83.8% 37 46 27Indiana 34,320 38,146 39,204 2.7% 2.8% 80.7% 81.6% 81.6% 42 17 20Iowa 35,696 38,936 39,989 2.3% 2.7% 83.9% 83.3% 83.2% 40 35 23Kansas 35,201 38,720 39,646 2.4% 2.4% 82.8% 82.8% 82.5% 41 29 31Kentucky 36,604 41,461 42,375 3.0% 2.2% 86.1% 88.7% 88.2% 28 11 38Louisiana 33,794 37,338 38,020 2.4% 1.8% 79.4% 79.9% 79.1% 46 31 48Maine 46,162 51,739 53,008 2.8% 2.5% 108.5% 110.7% 110.3% 7 14 29Maryland 52,435 57,770 59,671 2.6% 3.3% 123.3% 123.6% 124.2% 4 18 10Massachusetts 42,157 44,439 45,828 1.7% 3.1% 99.1% 95.1% 95.4% 18 50 13Michigan 42,185 46,787 47,858 2.6% 2.3% 99.2% 100.1% 99.6% 15 22 35Minnesota 31,194 34,343 34,976 2.3% 1.8% 73.3% 73.5% 72.8% 51 33 46Mississippi 37,143 40,679 41,461 2.2% 1.9% 87.3% 87.0% 86.3% 32 37 45Missouri 33,814 37,324 38,269 2.5% 2.5% 79.5% 79.8% 79.7% 45 24 26Nebraska 42,447 45,957 47,281 2.2% 2.9% 99.8% 98.3% 98.4% 16 42 15New Hampshire 51,645 56,382 57,546 2.2% 2.1% 121.4% 120.6% 119.8% 5 39 42New Jersey 34,567 39,264 40,032 3.0% 2.0% 81.3% 84.0% 83.3% 39 10 44New York 55,479 60,291 61,792 2.2% 2.5% 130.4% 129.0% 128.6% 2 43 28North Carolina 37,439 41,119 42,121 2.4% 2.4% 88.0% 88.0% 87.7% 30 30 30North Dakota 31,316 38,128 41,778 5.9% 9.6% 73.6% 81.6% 87.0% 31 1 1Ohio 38,568 41,788 42,972 2.2% 2.8% 90.7% 89.4% 89.4% 25 40 17Oklahoma 34,022 38,237 40,108 3.3% 4.9% 80.0% 81.8% 83.5% 38 5 2Oregon 38,077 41,675 43,090 2.5% 3.4% 89.5% 89.1% 89.7% 24 25 9Pennsylvania 41,349 45,733 47,035 2.6% 2.8% 97.2% 97.8% 97.9% 17 21 16Rhode Island 40,454 44,645 45,705 2.5% 2.4% 95.1% 95.5% 95.1% 19 27 33South Carolina 34,281 37,553 38,427 2.3% 2.3% 80.6% 80.3% 80.0% 44 34 34South Dakota 30,291 34,331 35,413 3.2% 3.2% 71.2% 73.4% 73.7% 50 8 12Tennessee 37,564 41,572 42,454 2.5% 2.1% 88.3% 88.9% 88.4% 27 26 40Texas 42,458 46,952 48,735 2.8% 3.8% 99.8% 100.4% 101.4% 14 15 3Vermont 35,542 39,434 40,293 2.5% 2.2% 83.6% 84.3% 83.9% 35 23 39Virginia 44,051 49,651 50,657 2.8% 2.0% 103.6% 106.2% 105.4% 9 13 43Washington 42,897 48,516 50,256 3.2% 3.6% 100.9% 103.8% 104.6% 11 6 6West Virginia 32,728 37,675 39,092 3.6% 3.8% 76.9% 80.6% 81.4% 43 2 4Wisconsin 36,821 39,966 41,003 2.2% 2.6% 86.6% 85.5% 85.3% 34 45 24

Note: Data in this table differ from other tables due to different release dates or data sources.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages

Average Annual Pay U.S. Average Annual Pay

Rates of Changefor Average RankingsAnnual Pay Average Annual Pay

as a Percent of


Table 48 Average Annual Pay for Workers Covered by Unemployment Insurance Compared to Average Earnings of Full-Time Workers

AverageAverage Annual Pay Three-yearAnnual as a Percent Three-year Avg. Earnings Rank by Rank by

Pay (BLS) of U.S. Average Average** as a Percent Average Three-year2009-11 of U.S. Avg. Annual Pay Avg. Earn.

Division/State 2011 2009 2010 2011 (2011 Dollars) 2009-11 2011 2009-2011

United States $48,043 100.0% $59,140 $55,786 $54,339 $56,422 100.0%

Mountain StatesArizona 44,581 92.8% 54,123 52,805 50,269 52,399 92.9% 25 23Colorado 49,383 102.8% 62,158 58,895 56,324 59,126 104.8% 12 13Idaho 49,082 102.2% 48,306 46,799 45,074 46,726 82.8% 44 45Montana 35,626 74.2% 47,032 45,714 42,208 44,985 79.7% 48 47Nevada 35,791 74.5% 51,132 47,133 45,270 47,845 84.8% 43 41New Mexico 43,102 89.7% 53,890 52,345 50,681 52,305 92.7% 23 24Utah 40,279 83.8% 56,315 52,122 50,599 53,012 94.0% 24 22Wyoming 43,394 90.3% 54,542 50,961 48,524 51,343 91.0% 30 28

Other StatesAlabama 41,186 85.7% 50,784 48,163 46,924 48,624 86.2% 38 39Alaska 37,280 77.6% 61,431 60,558 56,138 59,376 105.2% 15 12Arkansas 55,013 114.5% 46,771 44,240 42,666 44,559 79.0% 47 48California 61,145 127.3% 65,420 61,903 60,238 62,520 110.8% 7 8Connecticut 50,499 105.1% 77,689 73,029 72,736 74,484 132.0% 2 2Delaware 81,529 169.7% 61,222 55,860 54,584 57,222 101.4% 16 16District of Columbia 42,313 88.1% 87,619 81,746 79,702 83,022 147.1% 1 1Florida 45,090 93.9% 53,038 49,623 48,399 50,353 89.2% 31 31Georgia 42,473 88.4% 55,229 52,598 51,360 53,062 94.0% 19 21Hawaii 50,840 105.8% 53,729 50,785 50,965 51,826 91.9% 21 26Illinois 40,248 83.8% 62,331 59,229 58,551 60,037 106.4% 9 11Indiana 39,204 81.6% 52,780 49,796 48,300 50,292 89.1% 32 32Iowa 39,989 83.2% 51,550 47,769 47,234 48,851 86.6% 35 37Kansas 39,646 82.5% 53,361 50,004 49,200 50,855 90.1% 28 29Kentucky 42,375 88.2% 49,961 46,977 45,396 47,445 84.1% 42 42Louisiana 38,020 79.1% 51,948 49,062 47,589 49,533 87.8% 34 34Maine 53,008 110.3% 52,193 48,974 47,011 49,393 87.5% 37 35Maryland 59,671 124.2% 70,703 67,257 65,609 67,856 120.3% 5 5Massachusetts 45,828 95.4% 73,256 69,544 67,435 70,078 124.2% 4 4Michigan 47,858 99.6% 57,474 53,789 52,438 54,567 96.7% 18 18Minnesota 34,976 72.8% 61,200 57,884 56,239 58,441 103.6% 14 14Mississippi 41,461 86.3% 46,515 42,961 41,933 43,803 77.6% 49 50Missouri 38,269 79.7% 52,932 49,416 48,041 50,130 88.8% 33 33Nebraska 47,281 98.4% 51,825 47,858 45,753 48,479 85.9% 40 40New Hampshire 57,546 119.8% 63,942 59,637 58,091 60,557 107.3% 11 10New Jersey 40,032 83.3% 75,538 70,815 69,539 71,964 127.5% 3 3New York 61,792 128.6% 67,729 63,868 63,511 65,036 115.3% 6 6North Carolina 42,121 87.7% 53,428 49,865 48,617 50,636 89.7% 29 30North Dakota 41,778 87.0% 52,706 46,884 46,792 48,794 86.5% 39 38Ohio 42,972 89.4% 54,726 51,537 49,995 52,086 92.3% 27 25Oklahoma 40,108 83.5% 49,448 45,990 44,974 46,804 83.0% 45 44Oregon 43,090 89.7% 55,680 52,847 51,213 53,247 94.4% 20 19Pennsylvania 47,035 97.9% 58,369 55,434 54,073 55,959 99.2% 17 17Rhode Island 45,705 95.1% 31,516 30,840 27,667 30,008 53.2% 51 51South Carolina 38,427 80.0% 60,248 58,484 56,261 58,331 103.4% 13 15South Dakota 35,413 73.7% 49,081 47,354 45,493 47,309 83.8% 41 43Tennessee 42,454 88.4% 46,670 44,593 41,576 44,280 78.5% 50 49Texas 48,735 101.4% 51,878 49,123 47,034 49,345 87.5% 36 36Vermont 40,293 83.9% 56,036 52,340 50,814 53,063 94.0% 22 20Virginia 50,657 105.4% 53,156 51,112 49,999 51,422 91.1% 26 27Washington 50,256 104.6% 66,694 62,681 60,175 63,183 112.0% 8 7West Virginia 39,092 81.4% 63,789 59,821 58,102 60,571 107.4% 10 9Wisconsin 41,003 85.3% 49,528 45,128 44,197 46,285 82.0% 46 46

54011.698 51,066 49,611*Average Earnings of Full-time, Year-round Workers are based on Census Bureau data on aggregate earnings and population of full-time,

year-round workers (ages 16 years and over). Calculations by Utah Foundation.

**The three-year average is the sum of three inflation-adjusted single-years divided by three. Amounts are inflation-adjusted using CPI-U-RS.Calculations by Utah Foundation. Because the sample of households contacted in small population states like Utah is relatively few in number,the data collected for two or three years are combined to calculate less variable estimates. The Census Bureau recommends using two-year averagesfor evaluating changes in state estimates over time, and two-year averages when comparing the relative ranking of states.

Sources: 1. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 2. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

2011

Workers (Census)*(2011 Dollars)

Average Earningsof Full-time, Year-Round


Table 49 Employees on Nonfarm Payrolls

Rank by Rank byEmployees Average Rank by Rank by

Avg. Ann. Percent August August Percent on Nonfarm Annual Percent Percent2006 2010 2011 Growth Rate Change 2011 2012 Change Payrolls Growth Rate Change Change

Division/State (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 2006-11 2010-11 (thousands) (thousands) 2011-12 2011 2006-11 2010-11 8/11-8/12

United States 136,091 129,856 131,359 -0.7% 1.2% 131,278 133,092 1.4%

Mountain States 9,582 9,021 9,119 -1.0% 1.1% 9,136 9,265 1.4%Arizona 2,637 2,381 2,406 -1.8% 1.0% 2,389 2,444 2.3% 21 48 23 6Colorado 2,280 2,222 2,255 -0.2% 1.5% 2,272 2,305 1.4% 22 13 7 15Idaho 638 604 607 -1.0% 0.6% 612 622 1.7% 41 40 38 13Montana 434 428 427 -0.3% -0.2% 435 440 1.3% 45 19 50 24Nevada 1,280 1,117 1,126 -2.5% 0.8% 1,121 1,129 0.7% 34 51 33 38New Mexico 832 803 804 -0.7% 0.1% 804 792 -1.5% 37 28 45 51Utah 1,204 1,182 1,208 0.1% 2.2% 1,210 1,235 2.0% 32 10 3 9Wyoming 277 283 286 0.6% 1.0% 293 298 1.9% 51 5 29 12

Other StatesAlabama 1,980 1,870 1,867 -1.2% -0.2% 1,859 1,872 0.7% 24 44 51 36Alaska 315 325 329 0.8% 1.1% 351 352 0.2% 49 4 22 42Arkansas 1,199 1,161 1,160 -0.7% -0.1% 1,152 1,161 0.8% 33 27 49 31California 15,061 13,935 14,071 -1.3% 1.0% 13,934 14,240 2.2% 1 46 28 7Connecticut 1,681 1,608 1,624 -0.7% 1.0% 1,615 1,618 0.2% 27 29 27 44Delaware 438 414 417 -1.0% 0.9% 419 420 0.2% 46 38 32 43District of Columbia 688 712 728 1.2% 2.3% 726 731 0.8% 39 2 2 35Florida 7,995 7,193 7,274 -1.9% 1.1% 7,224 7,310 1.2% 4 49 20 26Georgia 4,090 3,843 3,882 -1.0% 1.0% 3,890 3,939 1.3% 10 42 24 23Hawaii 617 587 592 -0.8% 0.9% 582 596 2.5% 43 31 31 4Illinois 5,933 5,613 5,665 -0.9% 0.9% 5,675 5,719 0.8% 6 36 30 34Indiana 2,975 2,796 2,831 -1.0% 1.2% 2,821 2,893 2.6% 14 39 12 3Iowa 1,504 1,469 1,478 -0.4% 0.6% 1,468 1,479 0.8% 30 21 37 33Kansas 1,354 1,328 1,335 -0.3% 0.5% 1,323 1,341 1.3% 31 18 39 20Kentucky 1,847 1,770 1,792 -0.6% 1.2% 1,795 1,831 2.0% 26 24 16 10Louisiana 1,853 1,884 1,906 0.6% 1.2% 1,895 1,934 2.1% 23 6 14 8Maine 615 593 593 -0.7% 0.0% 605 603 -0.4% 42 30 47 48Maryland 2,590 2,518 2,548 -0.3% 1.2% 2,552 2,578 1.0% 20 20 17 29Massachusetts 3,246 3,190 3,209 -0.2% 0.6% 3,217 3,261 1.4% 13 14 36 17Michigan 4,328 3,861 3,937 -1.9% 1.9% 3,931 3,977 1.2% 8 50 5 27Minnesota 2,758 2,641 2,674 -0.6% 1.3% 2,705 2,729 0.9% 17 26 10 30Mississippi 1,141 1,091 1,091 -0.9% 0.0% 1,084 1,081 -0.3% 35 33 48 47Missouri 2,774 2,650 2,650 -0.9% 0.0% 2,637 2,644 0.3% 19 35 46 41Nebraska 942 940 944 0.1% 0.5% 944 956 1.3% 36 11 40 22New Hampshire 643 624 626 -0.5% 0.4% 630 630 -0.1% 40 22 42 45New Jersey 4,071 3,851 3,855 -1.1% 0.1% 3,864 3,912 1.3% 11 43 44 25New York 8,619 8,566 8,679 0.1% 1.3% 8,685 8,803 1.4% 3 8 9 19North Carolina 4,045 3,879 3,923 -0.6% 1.1% 3,936 3,961 0.6% 9 25 19 39North Dakota 352 376 394 2.3% 4.9% 392 418 6.6% 48 1 1 1Ohio 5,436 5,035 5,085 -1.3% 1.0% 5,096 5,197 2.0% 7 45 26 11Oklahoma 1,540 1,530 1,550 0.1% 1.3% 1,543 1,588 2.9% 29 9 8 2Oregon 1,704 1,602 1,619 -1.0% 1.1% 1,616 1,638 1.4% 28 41 21 18Pennsylvania 5,759 5,624 5,691 -0.2% 1.2% 5,662 5,684 0.4% 5 15 15 40Rhode Island 493 459 460 -1.4% 0.2% 462 459 -0.6% 44 47 43 49South Carolina 1,910 1,812 1,833 -0.8% 1.2% 1,840 1,855 0.8% 25 32 18 32South Dakota 399 403 406 0.4% 0.7% 414 417 0.7% 47 7 34 37Tennessee 2,783 2,615 2,655 -0.9% 1.6% 2,665 2,695 1.1% 18 37 6 28Texas 10,064 10,340 10,555 1.0% 2.1% 10,550 10,811 2.5% 2 3 4 5Vermont 308 298 300 -0.5% 0.7% 294 298 1.4% 50 23 35 16Virginia 3,727 3,638 3,682 -0.2% 1.2% 3,668 3,716 1.3% 12 16 13 21Washington 2,859 2,786 2,821 -0.3% 1.3% 2,827 2,876 1.7% 15 17 11 14West Virginia 756 747 754 -0.1% 1.0% 756 751 -0.7% 38 12 25 50Wisconsin 2,867 2,728 2,739 -0.9% 0.4% 2,756 2,751 -0.2% 16 34 41 46

p = preliminary

Note: Data in this table differ from other tables.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, State and Metro Area Employment, Hours, and Earnings

Rates of Changefor Employees on Employees on Rankings

Nonfarm Payrolls

Nonfarm Nonfarm PayrollsEmployees on Payrolls (not seasonally adjusted)


Table 50 Unemployment Rates

August August August AugustDivision/State 2006 2010 2011 2006-2011 2010-2011 2011 2012p 2006 2010 2011 2011 2012p

United States 4.6 9.6 9.0 5.0 -0.7 9.1 8.2

Mountain States 3.9 9.6 8.9 5.7 -0.7 9.0 7.9Arizona 4.1 10.5 9.5 6.4 -1.0 9.8 8.5 20 42 39 40 34Colorado 4.3 8.9 8.3 4.6 -0.6 8.1 7.8 23 29 28 25 29Idaho 3.0 8.8 8.7 5.8 -0.1 8.6 6.9 3 28 31 30 20Montana 3.2 6.9 6.9 3.6 0.0 6.4 5.7 9 8 14 10 10Nevada 4.1 7.9 7.4 3.8 -0.5 13.8 12.0 19 17 19 51 51New Mexico 4.3 13.7 13.6 9.5 -0.2 7.6 6.4 22 51 51 21 15Utah 3.0 8.0 6.7 5.0 -1.3 6.9 5.6 2 19 13 14 8Wyoming 3.2 7.0 6.0 3.8 -1.0 5.6 5.1 7 11 7 6 6

Other StatesAlabama 3.5 9.5 9.0 6.0 -0.5 9.4 8.5 11 32 33 38 34Alaska 6.5 7.9 7.6 1.4 -0.4 6.7 6.6 49 18 22 12 17Arkansas 5.3 7.9 8.0 2.7 0.1 8.0 6.9 43 16 26 24 20California 4.9 12.3 11.8 7.5 -0.6 11.9 10.4 37 49 50 50 49Connecticut 4.4 9.3 8.8 4.9 -0.5 8.9 9.2 25 30 32 32 43Delaware 3.6 8.0 7.3 4.5 -0.7 7.4 7.0 13 20 17 20 22District of Columbia 5.7 10.2 10.2 4.5 0.1 10.4 8.8 46 38 43 44 39Florida 3.3 11.3 10.5 7.9 -0.8 10.9 9.0 10 47 46 48 42Georgia 4.7 10.2 9.8 5.5 -0.4 10.1 9.2 33 40 42 41 43Hawaii 2.5 6.9 6.7 4.4 -0.2 7.0 5.7 1 7 11 16 10Illinois 4.7 10.5 9.8 5.8 -0.7 10.3 8.9 29 41 41 42 41Indiana 5.0 10.1 9.0 5.1 -1.0 9.3 8.0 40 37 34 34 30Iowa 3.7 6.3 5.9 2.5 -0.4 5.8 5.3 15 5 6 7 7Kansas 4.4 7.1 6.7 2.7 -0.4 6.9 6.2 24 12 12 14 14Kentucky 5.9 10.2 9.5 4.3 -0.7 9.3 8.4 47 39 40 34 33Louisiana 3.9 7.5 7.3 3.6 -0.2 7.6 7.3 17 14 16 21 28Maine 4.7 8.2 7.6 3.5 -0.6 6.7 6.7 31 21 21 12 18Maryland 3.8 7.8 7.1 4.0 -0.7 7.3 7.0 16 15 15 18 22Massachusetts 4.8 8.3 7.4 3.5 -1.0 7.2 6.4 35 23 18 17 15Michigan 6.9 12.6 10.3 5.8 -2.3 10.3 9.2 51 50 45 42 43Minnesota 4.1 7.3 6.4 3.2 -0.9 6.2 5.6 18 13 10 9 8Mississippi 6.8 10.5 10.7 3.7 0.2 10.7 8.5 50 43 48 46 34Missouri 4.8 9.3 8.6 4.5 -0.8 8.8 7.1 36 31 29 31 25Nebraska 3.1 4.7 4.4 1.6 -0.3 4.4 3.8 4 2 2 2 2New Hampshire 3.5 6.1 5.4 2.6 -0.7 5.4 5.7 12 4 4 5 10New Jersey 4.7 9.6 9.3 4.9 -0.3 9.3 9.7 30 33 37 34 47New York 4.6 8.6 8.2 4.0 -0.4 8.1 8.8 28 27 27 25 39North Carolina 4.8 10.9 10.5 6.2 -0.4 10.8 9.7 34 45 47 47 47North Dakota 3.2 3.8 3.5 0.6 -0.3 3.5 2.8 8 1 1 1 1Ohio 5.4 10.0 8.7 4.5 -1.3 8.5 6.8 45 36 30 29 19Oklahoma 4.1 6.9 6.2 2.8 -0.7 6.1 5.0 21 9 8 8 4Oregon 5.4 10.6 9.5 5.3 -1.2 9.4 8.7 44 44 38 38 38Pennsylvania 4.6 8.4 8.0 3.9 -0.5 8.2 8.2 27 24 24 27 31Rhode Island 5.0 11.7 11.3 6.6 -0.4 11.3 10.6 41 48 49 49 50South Carolina 6.4 11.2 10.3 4.8 -0.9 10.6 9.4 48 46 44 45 46South Dakota 3.1 5.0 4.7 1.9 -0.4 4.5 4.4 6 3 3 3 3Tennessee 5.2 9.8 9.2 4.6 -0.6 9.3 8.3 42 34 36 34 32Texas 4.9 8.2 7.9 3.3 -0.2 8.2 7.0 38 22 23 27 22Vermont 3.7 6.4 5.6 2.7 -0.8 5.1 5.0 14 6 5 4 4Virginia 3.1 6.9 6.3 3.9 -0.6 6.5 5.8 5 10 9 11 13Washington 5.0 9.9 9.2 5.0 -0.7 9.0 8.5 39 35 35 33 34West Virginia 4.5 8.5 8.0 3.9 -0.5 7.9 7.2 26 26 25 23 27Wisconsin 4.7 8.5 7.5 3.7 -1.0 7.3 7.1 32 25 20 18 25

p = preliminary

Note: Data in this table differ from other tables.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics

Rankings by Unemployment RateRate Rate Change (not seasonally adjusted)

Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment Rate


Table 51 Percent of People in Poverty

2006 2010 2011 2009-2010 2010-2011 2010-11 Two-year 2009-2011 2009-2011Standard Average Standard Percent

Division/State Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Error Difference Percent Error Rank

United States 12.3 15.1 15.0 14.7 15.1 0.1 0.3 * 14.8 0.1

Mountain StatesArizona 14.4 18.8 17.2 20.0 18.0 1.4 -2.0 19.1 1.3 48Colorado 9.7 12.3 13.2 12.3 12.7 0.9 0.4 12.6 0.8 20Idaho 9.5 13.8 15.7 13.8 14.8 1.4 1.0 14.4 1.5 27Montana 13.5 14.5 16.5 14.0 15.5 1.4 1.5 14.8 1.2 30Nevada 16.9 18.3 22.2 18.8 20.2 1.3 1.4 19.9 1.2 50New Mexico 9.5 16.6 15.5 14.8 16.0 1.1 1.2 15.0 0.9 32Utah 9.3 10.0 11.0 9.9 10.5 0.9 0.7 10.2 0.7 6Wyoming 10.0 9.6 10.7 9.4 10.1 0.9 0.8 9.8 0.7 3

Other StatesAlabama 14.3 17.2 15.4 16.9 16.3 1.3 -0.6 16.4 1.2 38Alaska 8.9 12.5 11.7 12.1 12.1 1.2 - 12.0 0.9 16Arkansas 17.7 15.3 18.7 17.1 17.0 1.3 -0.1 17.6 1.5 44California 12.2 16.3 16.9 15.8 16.6 0.4 0.8 * 16.2 0.4 37Connecticut 8.0 8.6 10.1 8.5 9.3 0.7 0.9 * 9.0 0.6 2Delaware 9.3 12.2 13.7 12.3 12.9 0.8 0.7 12.7 0.7 21District of Columbia 18.3 19.5 19.9 18.7 19.7 1.1 1.0 19.1 0.9 48Florida 11.5 16.0 14.9 15.3 15.4 0.6 0.2 15.1 0.5 33Georgia 12.6 18.8 18.4 18.6 18.6 0.9 - 18.5 0.9 46Hawaii 9.2 12.4 12.1 12.4 12.2 1.0 -0.2 12.3 0.9 18Illinois 10.6 14.1 14.2 13.7 14.1 0.6 0.5 13.8 0.5 23Indiana 10.6 16.3 15.6 16.2 15.9 1.1 -0.3 16.0 1.1 36Iowa 10.3 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.4 0.6 -0.1 10.5 0.6 7Kansas 12.8 14.5 14.3 14.1 14.4 1.2 0.3 14.2 1.2 26Kentucky 16.8 17.7 16.0 17.3 16.8 1.2 -0.5 16.9 1.1 43Louisiana 17.0 21.5 21.1 17.9 21.3 1.3 3.4 * 18.9 1.2 47Maine 10.2 12.6 13.4 12.0 13.0 0.9 1.0 * 12.5 0.8 19Maryland 8.4 10.9 9.3 10.2 10.1 0.7 -0.2 9.9 0.5 4Massachusetts 12.0 10.9 10.6 10.9 10.7 0.8 -0.1 10.8 0.7 11Michigan 13.3 15.7 15.0 14.9 15.3 0.8 0.5 14.9 0.7 31Minnesota 8.2 10.8 10.0 10.9 10.4 0.8 -0.5 10.6 0.7 8Mississippi 20.6 22.5 17.4 22.8 20.0 1.0 -2.9 21.0 0.9 51Missouri 11.4 15.0 15.4 15.3 15.2 1.3 - 15.3 1.0 34Nebraska 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.2 1.0 0.2 10.1 0.8 5New Hampshire 5.4 6.5 7.6 7.1 7.1 0.6 -0.1 7.3 0.6 1New Jersey 8.8 11.1 11.4 10.2 11.2 0.8 1.1 * 10.6 0.7 8New York 14.0 16.0 16.0 15.9 16.0 0.6 0.1 15.9 0.6 35North Carolina 13.8 17.4 15.4 17.2 16.4 1.0 -0.8 16.6 0.8 40North Dakota 11.4 12.6 9.9 11.8 11.3 0.9 -0.5 11.2 1.0 13Ohio 12.1 15.4 15.1 14.4 15.2 1.0 0.9 * 14.6 0.8 29Oklahoma 15.2 16.3 13.9 14.6 15.1 1.2 0.5 14.4 1.0 27Oregon 11.8 14.3 14.4 13.8 14.3 1.0 0.5 14.0 0.8 24Pennsylvania 11.3 12.2 12.6 11.7 12.4 0.6 0.8 12.0 0.5 16Rhode Island 10.5 14.0 13.4 13.5 13.7 0.9 0.2 13.5 0.7 22South Carolina 11.2 16.9 19.0 15.3 18.0 1.0 2.6 * 16.6 0.8 40South Dakota 10.7 13.6 14.5 13.9 14.1 1.6 0.2 14.1 1.6 25Tennessee 14.9 16.7 16.3 16.6 16.5 1.3 -0.1 16.5 1.2 39Texas 16.4 18.4 17.4 17.8 17.9 0.7 0.1 17.7 0.6 45Vermont 7.8 10.8 11.6 10.1 11.2 0.9 1.1 * 10.6 0.7 8Virginia 8.6 10.7 11.4 10.7 11.0 0.7 0.3 10.9 0.7 12Washington 8.0 11.6 12.5 11.6 12.1 0.9 0.4 11.9 0.8 15West Virginia 15.3 16.8 17.5 16.3 17.2 1.3 0.8 16.7 1.0 42Wisconsin 10.1 10.1 13.1 10.4 11.6 0.9 1.1 * 11.3 0.9 14

*Statistically significant at the 90% confidence level

**Because the sample of households contacted in small population states like Utah is relatively few in number, the data collected for two or three years are combined to calculate less variable estimates. The Census Bureau recommends using two-year averages for evaluating changes in state estimates over time, and three-year averages when comparing the relative ranking of states.

Notes: 1. The Standard Error is a measurement that indicates the magnitude of sampling variability for the estimates.2. The standard errors for U.S. estimates are much smaller than those for the states.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements

Percent of Persons in PovertyPercent of Persons in Poverty Percent of Persons in Poverty

Two-year Average** Three-year Average**

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 111 Social Indicators UT

Utah Quality of Life Information Utah's Kids Count. The Annie E. Casey Foundation ranked Utah 11th in the nation in child well-being in its 2012 Kids Count Data Book, lower than the 2011 rank of seventh. This foundation tracks indicators of child well-being and de-termines a state National Composite Rank by the sum of the state's standing on each of the following ten measures: per-cent low-birth-weight babies; infant mortality rate; child death rate; rate of teen deaths by accident, homicide, and suicide; teen birth rate; percent of teens who are high school drop-outs; percent of teens not attending school and not working; percent of children living with parents who do not have full-time, year-round employment; percent of children in poverty; and percent of families with children headed by a single par-ent. Transportation Choices. The availability of multiple trans-portation alternatives is an often overlooked quality of life measure. The 2011 American Community Survey showed 76.5% of working Utahns drove alone as their means of transportation to work, 12.0% carpooled, 2.4% used public transportation, 2.4% walked, and 4.6% worked at home. The mean travel time to work was 21.6 minutes. Between 2010 and 2011, the Utah Transit Authority reported a 14.1% in-crease in the number of passengers using the TRAX light rail system, a 5.2% increase in the number of people using vanpools, a 8.2% increase in the number of people using Par-atransit service, a 10.8% increase in the number of passengers using commuter rail service, and a 1.5% increase in the num-ber of passengers using bus service. Overall, UTA total regu-lar service increased by 6.4%. UTA is moving toward build-ing 70 miles of rail by 2015, including FrontRunner South and the Draper and Airport TRAX lines. Current Data on Social Well-Being Crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports for 2010 reported the rate of violent crime (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, rob-bery, and aggravated assault) for Utah was 212.7 per 100,000 people, the fifth lowest in the nation. Compared with a na-tional rate of 403.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people in 2010,

Utah continued to have a significantly lower rate of violent crime than the U.S. Education. In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey reported 90.3% of Utahns had at least a high school degree, ranking Utah as the 14th highest state in the nation. The national rate was 85.9%. Utah also ranked 17th in higher education attainment, with 29.7% of persons 25 years and over having obtained a bachelor's degree or higher. The national rate was 28.5%. Home Ownership. Utah's home ownership rate in 2011 was 71.4%, 12th highest in the nation. The rate for the na-tion was 66.1%. The states with the highest home ownership were West Virginia with a rate of 78.7%, Mississippi at 74.8%, Vermont at 74.6%, Delaware at 74.2%, and South Carolina at 74.2%. The lowest rates of home ownership occurred in the District of Columbia with a rate of 44.8%, New York at 53.6%, California at 55.3%, Hawaii at 55.4%, and Nevada at 56.2%. Vital Statistics Utah's unique age structure affects its ranking among other states on many vital statistics. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 estimates show 31.2% of Utah's population was younger than 18 years old, the highest percentage in the nation. Utah also has the second lowest percentage of the population age 65 and over (9.2%), behind Alaska at 8.1%. Utah’s median age of 29.5 is the lowest in the nation. Births. Preliminary data for 2010 from the National Center for Health Statistics revealed Utah's birth rate was 18.9 births per 1,000 people, which is the highest in the nation and sub-stantially higher than the national rate of 13.0. In 2010, Alas-ka and Texas ranked second and third in the nation with birth rates of 16.1 and 15.4. New Hampshire and Maine both had the lowest birth rate in the nation at 9.8. Vermont also had low birth rate with 9.9. Deaths. Preliminary data from the National Center for Health Statistics showed the overall death rate in Utah was 5.3 per 1,000 people in 2010, the second lowest in the nation. The age-adjusted death rate in Utah was 7.0 per 1,000 people. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics revealed the number of Utah deaths caused by cancer per 100,000 people was 137.4 in 2010, the lowest in the nation.

Social Indicators

Quality of life is a subjective concept and difficult to measure. The connection between economic performance and quality of life, however, is indisputable. Even with the state of the economy, Utah remained among the top states in terms of quality of life. Utah's transportation infrastructure has be-come more diverse and is growing. Utah's violent crime rate remained among the lowest in the United States. The pov-erty rate was below the national average and educational at-tainment continued to be among the highest in the nation. Utah ranked 11th in the indicators of child well-being and seventh highest in overall health status. The combination of these and other measurable data show Utah's quality of life continues to be among the best in the nation.


Table 52 Crime, Education, and Home Ownership

Educational AttainmentPersons 25 Years Old and Over

Violent Crime* Property Crime** 2011 2

per 100,000 People per 100,000 People High School Bachelor's Degree Home Ownership Rates

2010 1 2010 1 or Higher or Higher 2011 3

Rate Rank Rate Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank

U.S. 403.6 - 2,941.9 - 85.9 - 28.5 - 66.1 -

Alabama 377.8 22 3,516.8 11 82.7 47 22.3 46 72.9 9Alaska 638.8 3 2,852.5 25 91.8 4 26.4 29 64.4 43Arizona 408.1 19 3,534.0 10 85.7 35 26.6 27 66.0 39Arkansas 505.3 11 3,558.9 8 83.8 44 20.3 49 67.6 35California 440.6 17 2,635.8 31 81.1 49 30.3 15 55.3 49Colorado 320.8 26 2,684.2 28 90.2 15 36.7 4 65.9 40Connecticut 281.4 32 2,193.2 44 89.1 20 36.2 5 70.6 18Delaware 620.9 4 3,448.2 12 87.0 32 28.8 20 74.2 4District of Columbia 1,330.2 1 4,778.9 1 87.2 30 52.5 1 44.8 51Florida 542.4 10 3,558.4 9 85.9 34 25.8 34 69.0 26Georgia 403.3 20 3,640.5 7 84.3 39 27.6 24 66.2 38Hawaii 262.7 38 3,314.2 17 90.6 10 29.1 19 55.4 48Idaho 221.0 45 1,995.8 48 88.6 23 25.2 38 72.4 10Illinois 435.2 18 2,681.0 29 87.2 30 31.0 14 68.4 30Indiana 314.5 29 3,042.4 21 87.3 29 23.0 44 72.1 11Iowa 273.5 34 2,242.5 42 90.6 10 25.8 34 71.2 14Kansas 369.1 23 3,119.9 20 90.0 17 30.1 16 65.4 41Kentucky 242.6 42 2,551.3 34 83.1 46 21.1 47 69.1 24Louisiana 549.0 8 3,647.5 6 82.5 48 21.1 47 70.1 19Maine 122.0 51 2,479.3 37 90.9 8 28.4 21 73.9 8Maryland 547.7 9 2,997.3 23 88.9 21 36.9 3 69.7 20Massachusetts 466.6 14 2,350.5 39 89.2 19 39.1 2 65.3 42Michigan 490.3 12 2,713.6 27 88.8 22 25.6 36 74.1 6Minnesota 236.0 43 2,572.3 32 92.0 2 32.4 11 71.3 13Mississippi 269.7 36 2,985.0 24 81.1 49 19.8 50 74.8 2Missouri 455.0 15 3,346.4 16 87.6 28 26.1 33 71.1 15Montana 272.2 35 2,543.8 35 92.3 1 28.2 22 68.4 30Nebraska 279.5 33 2,673.2 30 91.0 7 27.9 23 68.9 27Nevada 660.6 2 2,774.7 26 84.0 43 22.5 45 56.2 47New Hampshire 167.0 49 2,186.3 45 91.4 6 33.4 9 74.1 6New Jersey 307.7 31 2,081.9 47 88.1 26 35.3 7 66.4 36New Mexico 588.9 7 3,435.4 14 83.2 45 25.6 36 69.1 24New York 392.1 21 1,941.2 49 85.0 36 32.9 10 53.6 50North Carolina 363.4 25 3,447.3 13 84.7 38 26.9 26 68.3 32North Dakota 225.0 44 1,768.5 51 90.7 9 26.3 31 68.3 32Ohio 315.2 27 3,245.2 18 88.3 25 24.7 39 68.9 27Oklahoma 479.5 13 3,415.5 15 86.3 33 23.8 42 69.4 21Oregon 252.0 40 3,012.9 22 89.4 18 29.3 18 66.4 36Pennsylvania 366.2 24 2,173.0 46 88.6 23 27.0 25 71.1 15Rhode Island 256.6 39 2,556.6 33 84.8 37 31.1 13 63.4 46South Carolina 597.7 6 3,900.4 2 84.2 40 24.1 41 74.2 4South Dakota 268.5 37 1,852.4 50 90.6 10 26.3 31 69.3 22Tennessee 613.3 5 3,657.9 5 84.2 40 23.6 43 69.3 22Texas 450.3 16 3,783.0 3 81.1 49 26.4 29 64.3 44Utah 212.7 47 3,179.6 19 90.3 14 29.7 17 71.4 12Vermont 130.2 50 2,282.3 41 91.8 4 35.4 6 74.6 3Virginia 213.6 46 2,327.2 40 87.8 27 35.1 8 67.9 34Washington 313.8 30 3,706.6 4 90.1 16 31.9 12 64.2 45West Virginia 314.6 28 2,239.6 43 84.2 40 18.5 51 78.7 1Wisconsin 248.7 41 2,507.7 36 90.4 13 26.5 28 68.5 29Wyoming 195.9 48 2,461.6 38 92.0 2 24.7 39 71.1 15

Note: Rank is high to low. When states share the same rank, the next lower rank is omitted.* Violent crimes are offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.** Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor-vehicle thefts.

Sources: 1. Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States, 2010." 2. U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey 3. U.S. Census Bureau. Housing Vacancy Survey Annual Statistics: 2011


Table 53 Vital Statistics and Health

Estimated Deaths Persons WithoutBirths per Deaths per by Cancer per State Health Health Insurance

1,000 People 1,000 People 100,000 People Ranking 3-Year Average

2010 1 2010 2 2011 3 2011 3 2009-2011 4

Rate Rank Rate Rank Rate Rank Rank Percent Rank

U.S. 13.0 - 8.0 - 190.8 - - 16.0 -

Alabama 12.6 32 10.0 2 211.7 7 46 15.0 20Alaska 16.1 2 5.2 51 192.0 27 35 17.8 12Arizona 13.9 11 7.3 42 166.7 47 29 18.5 8Arkansas 13.2 20 9.9 3 212.4 6 47 18.3 10California 13.7 14 6.3 48 173.3 45 24 19.5 6Colorado 13.2 20 6.3 49 163.9 48 9 14.4 24Connecticut 11.0 46 8.0 29 185.7 36 3 10.3 45Delaware 12.6 32 8.6 24 205.0 11 30 11.5 39District of Columbia 15.2 4 7.8 34 182.3 40 33 11.2 40Florida 11.4 43 9.2 11 190.5 31 37 20.7 3Georgia 13.8 12 7.4 40 158.9 49 4 19.7 5Hawaii 14.0 10 7.1 46 175.8 44 19 7.6 50Idaho 14.8 5 7.3 43 199.7 17 28 17.1 15Illinois 12.9 22 7.8 33 208.2 10 38 14.6 22Indiana 12.9 22 8.8 19 191.0 29 17 13.0 34Iowa 12.7 31 9.1 13 189.6 32 26 11.0 41Kansas 14.2 7 8.6 23 225.1 1 43 13.0 34Kentucky 12.9 22 9.7 7 215.3 4 49 15.0 20Louisiana 13.8 12 9.0 16 204.2 12 8 18.4 9Maine 9.8 50 9.6 8 196.4 19 22 9.8 46Maryland 12.8 28 7.5 38 192.9 22 5 13.3 31Massachusetts 11.1 45 8.0 30 199.7 17 30 4.4 51Michigan 11.6 42 8.7 21 182.4 39 6 12.8 36Minnesota 12.9 22 7.3 41 218.3 3 50 9.0 49Mississippi 13.5 15 9.8 5 204.2 12 40 18.2 11Missouri 12.8 28 9.2 12 184.4 37 25 14.5 23Montana 12.2 38 8.9 17 187.2 33 16 17.2 14Nebraska 14.2 7 8.3 27 192.7 24 42 12.2 37Nevada 13.3 19 7.3 44 191.9 28 2 21.5 2New Hampshire 9.8 50 7.7 35 193.0 21 11 10.8 44New Jersey 12.4 37 7.9 31 170.0 46 34 15.2 19New Mexico 13.5 15 7.7 36 177.6 43 18 20.6 4New York 12.5 35 7.6 37 199.8 16 32 13.8 28North Carolina 12.8 28 8.3 28 186.6 35 12 17.1 15North Dakota 13.5 15 8.8 18 208.7 8 36 10.9 42Ohio 12.1 39 9.4 9 208.5 9 48 13.7 29Oklahoma 14.2 7 9.7 6 192.8 23 14 17.4 13Oregon 11.9 41 8.3 25 200.5 15 26 15.7 18Pennsylvania 11.2 44 9.8 4 192.5 25 10 10.9 42Rhode Island 10.6 48 9.1 14 201.4 14 45 11.9 38South Carolina 12.6 32 9.0 15 180.8 42 23 18.8 7South Dakota 14.5 6 8.7 20 212.5 5 39 13.1 33Tennessee 12.5 35 9.4 10 182.8 38 44 14.3 25Texas 15.4 3 6.6 47 137.4 50 7 24.6 1Utah 18.9 1 5.3 50 190.6 30 1 14.2 26Vermont 9.9 49 8.6 22 195.5 20 20 9.1 48Virginia 12.9 22 7.4 39 187.0 34 15 13.3 31Washington 12.9 22 7.2 45 220.0 2 41 13.7 29West Virginia 11.0 46 11.5 1 192.5 25 13 14.0 27Wisconsin 12.0 40 8.3 26 182.2 41 21 9.6 47Wyoming 13.4 18 7.9 32 181.0 33 19 16.8 17

Note: Rank is high to low. When states share the same rank, the next lower rank is omitted.

Sources: 1. National Center for Health Statistics, "National Vital Statistics Reports," Vol 60, No 02. Data are preliminary2. National Center for Health Statistics, "National Vital Statistics Reports," Vol 60, No 04. Not age adjusted. Data are preliminary3. United Health Foundation, "America's Health: United Health Foundation State Health Rankings 2011" 4. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009 to 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplements


Table 54 Poverty and Public Assistance

Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program FY 20113

All Ages in Poverty (Average) 2011 2

2009-2011 1 Rate per Rate per Rate per1,000 1,000 Total 1,000 Total

Percent Rank Recipients people Rank Persons People Rank Households Households Rank

U.S. 14.8 - 4,363,000 14.0 - 44,708,726 133.9 - 21,072,113 284.0 -

Alabama 16.4 14 55,973 11.7 22 920,365 135.2 14 404,793 307.4 8Alaska 12.0 35 10,196 14.1 18 86,044 170.8 2 35,072 419.1 2Arizona 19.1 3 39,937 6.2 42 1,067,617 128.7 27 465,375 295.3 13Arkansas 17.6 8 18,164 6.2 41 486,451 123.7 42 210,670 285.7 20California 16.2 15 1,462,880 38.8 1 3,672,980 147.1 4 1,612,825 334.9 3Colorado 12.6 32 32,110 6.3 40 453,103 140.3 8 200,064 317.7 4Connecticut 9.0 50 31,864 8.9 30 378,677 142.5 6 205,772 262.2 40Delaware 12.7 31 15,496 17.1 10 134,927 126.8 35 61,877 276.5 27District of Columbia 19.1 3 22,734 36.8 2 134,845 141.7 7 76,075 251.1 45Florida 15.1 19 93,913 4.9 46 3,074,671 139.6 10 1,659,063 258.6 41Georgia 18.5 6 36,911 3.8 49 1,780,039 135.4 13 789,785 305.1 9Hawaii 12.3 34 27,184 19.8 7 159,644 215.4 1 79,624 431.8 1Idaho 14.4 24 2,881 1.8 50 228,629 132.0 20 96,372 313.0 5Illinois 13.8 29 88,491 6.9 38 1,793,886 139.2 11 859,785 290.3 16Indiana 16.0 16 57,786 8.9 31 877,560 131.7 21 381,217 303.1 10Iowa 10.5 45 43,828 14.3 17 373,856 126.3 38 173,186 272.7 32Kansas 14.2 26 37,044 12.9 19 298,642 126.3 37 138,910 271.6 33Kentucky 16.9 9 62,798 14.4 14 823,472 127.6 32 381,740 275.3 29Louisiana 18.9 5 23,674 5.2 44 884,519 130.6 23 388,516 297.3 12Maine 12.5 33 25,979 19.6 8 247,943 128.4 28 126,184 252.4 43Maryland 9.9 48 61,455 10.5 24 667,738 129.2 26 328,328 262.7 39Massachusetts 10.8 41 99,337 15.1 12 813,631 132.3 18 447,066 240.8 49Michigan 14.9 21 158,322 16.0 11 1,928,478 136.2 12 967,566 271.4 34Minnesota 10.6 42 48,789 9.1 28 505,919 115.0 51 245,585 237.0 50Mississippi 21.0 1 25,079 8.4 34 622,596 123.3 43 273,029 281.1 23Missouri 15.3 18 86,123 14.3 16 943,088 127.1 34 433,899 276.2 28Montana 14.8 22 8,551 8.6 33 124,243 129.7 24 57,133 282.0 22Nebraska 10.1 47 15,100 8.2 36 174,204 122.7 45 76,183 280.6 24Nevada 15.0 20 27,578 10.1 25 332,959 124.4 41 156,319 264.9 38New Hampshire 7.3 51 10,414 7.9 37 113,407 119.5 48 54,134 250.4 46New Jersey 10.6 42 84,132 9.5 27 759,136 133.3 16 370,887 272.8 31New Mexico 19.9 2 50,793 24.4 3 414,275 127.1 33 179,007 294.1 14New York 15.9 17 279,238 14.3 15 2,999,991 148.6 3 1,600,690 278.6 26North Carolina 16.6 11 43,544 4.5 47 1,590,069 124.6 40 734,482 269.7 36North Dakota 11.2 39 4,495 6.6 39 60,902 131.3 22 27,893 286.6 19Ohio 14.6 23 215,221 18.6 9 1,779,237 139.9 9 847,377 293.7 15Oklahoma 14.4 24 19,865 5.2 43 614,704 128.4 28 272,189 290.0 17Oregon 14.0 28 79,016 20.4 5 772,756 128.3 31 419,693 236.1 51Pennsylvania 12.0 35 162,563 12.8 20 1,718,211 128.4 30 815,765 270.5 35Rhode Island 13.5 30 15,573 14.8 13 160,201 142.9 5 86,368 265.1 37South Carolina 16.6 11 40,274 8.6 32 844,405 132.2 19 390,936 285.6 21South Dakota 14.1 27 6,824 8.3 35 101,817 132.7 17 43,585 310.0 7Tennessee 16.5 13 152,957 23.9 4 1,275,790 133.8 15 611,502 279.2 25Texas 17.7 7 110,752 4.3 48 3,977,273 125.6 39 1,608,476 310.5 6Utah 10.2 46 14,255 5.1 45 283,971 117.8 49 111,799 299.1 11Vermont 10.6 42 6,233 10.0 26 92,038 122.1 46 46,239 243.0 48Virginia 10.9 40 73,289 9.1 29 858,782 129.6 25 406,811 273.5 30Washington 11.9 37 139,358 20.4 6 1,054,693 126.6 36 543,533 245.7 47West Virginia 16.7 10 23,189 12.5 21 345,955 119.8 47 160,721 257.9 42Wisconsin 11.3 38 63,124 11.1 23 801,073 116.3 50 370,372 251.5 44Wyoming 9.8 49 607 1.1 51 36,031 123.0 44 15,341 288.8 18

Note: Rank is high to low. When states share the same rank, the next lower rank is omitted.

Sources: 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2009 to 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplements. 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, "Total Number of Recipients 2011." Welfare reform replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) as of July 1, 1997. National total includes recipients in U.S. territories. Rates calculated by the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget using 2010 Census population counts. 3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service

Average Monthly Participation

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 115 Public Education UT

Enrollment Utah's student enrollment growth has been moderate for several years after peaking at 3.1% in 2006. Enrollment grew by 13,225 students between 2011 and 2012, a 2.3% increase. Utah continues to experience increases in population, and growth in student enrollment is expected to follow suit over the next several years. Natural increase is fueling this growth in enrollment. For several years, the incoming class was larger than the pre-vious year's class, which has led to the current age structure of Utah's young student body. In fall 2011, the trend contin-ues, with a larger kindergarten class than the previous year. From grade 7 through grade 12, the numbers decline due to lower births in the age cohorts, out-migration, dropouts, and early graduation. Although Utah’s student population is primarily white (77.8%), it is becoming slightly more diverse. In fall 2011, 15.0% of Utah's student body was Hispanic or Latino, 1.8% was Asian, 1.5% was Pacific Islander, 1.3% was American Indian and Alaska Native, and 1.3% was Black or African American. Hispanic or Latino was Utah's fastest growing group. In 2011, over 100 different languages were spoken in students’ homes. Finances There are economies of scale associated with school size: the larger the school district, the lower the per pupil expenditure. The marginal cost of adding one student to a large, urban class is minimal. Conversely, the per-pupil cost of operating a rural school where class sizes are smaller is higher. The ur-banization of Utah's population is one reason why Utah's current per pupil expenditures are so low. In FY2009, Utah spent approximately $6,612 per student, the lowest in the nation and 62.4% of the national average. The sources of the Utah Public Education System's funding are federal, local (from property taxes), and state (primarily from income tax). Achievement A total of 20,449 Utah students took Advance Placement (AP) Exams in 2012 with a pass rate of 68%. This was 9% above the passing rate of their national peers (50%). Passing AP tests means the student scored a 3, 4, or 5 on the test, thus earning college credit. There was a 10% increase in the number of students who took AP exams from 2011. Partici-

pation in AP exams in 2012 was up across all ethnic and racial groups in Utah. In addition to a high quality education, a child's success in school is also attributed to factors at home, such as income and parents' education. In 2011, Utah's median household income of $56,991 ranked 11th in the nation and above the national average. The parents of Utah's school children are well educated. Utah ranks 17th in the percent people 25 years and over with bachelor's degrees at 29.7% and 14th in the percent of people with high school diplomas at 90.3%. Charter Schools Charter schools operate independently of school districts, with the exception of a few that are district-operated. They receive public funds and must adhere to federal and state laws and administrative rules for the use of those funds and for the operation of programs. The educational purposes of each vary. For example, Tuacahn High School near St. George offers arts programs, while the curriculum at the Academy of Math, Engineering, and Science in Salt Lake is geared toward college preparation. FY2000 was the first year that charter schools operated within the state. That year, eight schools opened with 390 students enrolled. In 2011-12, 78 charter schools educated 44,892 students, about 7.6% of all Utah students in public schools.

Public Education

In fall 2012, there were an estimated 600,970 students in Utah's public education system, an increase of 13,225 stu-dents or 2.3% over 2011. In FY2011, Utah's total public education expenditure as a percent of total personal income was 4.2%, ranking Utah 34th in the nation. Utah's public education system operates over 900 community-based schools. The system provides an education that continually evolves in order to prepare students for the future.


Figure 42 Utah Public Education Enrollment

Figure 43 Growth of Public Education Enrollment

Source: Utah State Office of Education, Finance and Statistics


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

197

6

197

7

197

8

197

9

198

0

198

1

198

2

198

3

198

4

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

197

7

197

8

197

9

198

0

198

1

198

2

198

3

198

4

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1


Figure 44 Largest School Districts in Utah: 2011-12

Figure 45 Fastest Growing School Districts in Utah from SY2011 to SY2012 with Enrollment 1,000+

Source: Utah State Office of Education, Finance and Statistics.


15,605

23,919

26,206

29,724

30,423

33,490

50,581

67,736

67,736

68,233

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

Cache

Salt Lake

Washington

Nebo

Weber

Canyons

Jordan

Granite

Davis

Alpine

Number of Students

1.8%

2.0%

2.1%

2.6%

2.8%

2.8%

3.0%

3.2%

3.3%

4.6%

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

Tooele

Nebo

Washington

Davis

South Sanpete

Duchesne

Provo

Wasatch

Alpine

Uintah


Figure 46 Current Expenditures Per Pupil: FY 2009

Figure 47 K-12 Expenditures as a Percent of State Personal Income: FY 2009

Source: National Center of Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

$0

$4,000

$8,000

$12,000

$16,000

$20,000

Dis

tric

t o

f C

olu

mb

iaN

ew

Yo

rkN

ew J

ers

ey

Ala

ska

Co

nn

ecti

cu

tV

erm

on

tR

ho

de

Isla

nd

Wyo

min

gM

ass

ach

use

tts

Ma

ryla

nd

New

Ha

mp

sh

ire

Ha

wai

iP

enn

sy

lva

nia

Ma

ine

Del

aw

are

Illin

ois

Wis

con

sin

Min

ne

so

taV

irg

inia

Oh

ioN

eb

rask

aW

est

Vir

gin

iaL

ou

isia

na

Mic

hig

anK

an

sas

Mo

nta

na

Iow

aM

iss

ou

riN

ort

h D

ako

taW

ash

ing

ton

Geo

rgia

New

Me

xico

Ore

go

nC

alif

orn

iaIn

dia

na

So

uth

Car

olin

aA

lab

ama

Ke

ntu

cky

Flo

rid

aA

rkan

sas

Co

lora

do

Tex

asS

ou

th D

ako

taN

ort

h C

aro

lina

Ne

vad

aM

issi

ssip

pi

Te

nn

esse

eA

rizo

na

Ok

lah

om

aId

aho

Uta

h

U.S. Rate: $10,591

Source: National Center of Education Statistics

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Ala

ska

Ve

rmo

nt

New

Jer

sey

New

Yo

rkW

es

t V

irg

inia

Wy

om

ing

Mic

hig

anR

ho

de

Isla

nd

Mai

ne

Ge

org

iaN

ew M

exic

oO

hio

Wis

co

ns

inA

rka

ns

as

Co

nn

ect

icu

tS

ou

th C

aro

lin

aT

ex

as

Ind

ian

aL

ou

isia

na

Illi

no

isM

issi

ssi

pp

iN

ew H

amp

shir

eK

an

sas

Del

awa

reP

en

ns

ylv

an

iaN

ebra

ska

Mo

nta

na

Ala

ba

ma

Mas

sa

ch

us

etts

Ke

ntu

ck

yM

inn

es

ota

Mar

yla

nd

Iow

aU

tah

Mis

so

uri

Ore

go

nH

awa

iiId

aho

Okl

ah

om

aA

rizo

na

Vir

gin

iaC

ali

forn

iaN

ort

h C

aro

lin

aN

ev

ad

aT

en

ne

sse

eW

as

hin

gto

nN

ort

h D

ako

taS

ou

th D

ak

ota

Co

lora

do

Dis

tric

t o

f…F

lori

da

U.S. Rate: 4.4%


Figure 48 Total Enrollment and Per Pupil Expenditures: 2010

Source: Utah State Office of Education, Finance and Statistics.


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Gra

nit

eD

avis

Alp

ine

Jord

anC

anyo

ns

Web

erN

ebo

Was

hin

gto

nS

alt

Lak

eC

ach

eP

rovo

To

oel

eO

gd

en

Bo

x E

lder

Iro

nM

urr

ay

Uin

tah

Lo

gan

Was

atch

Par

k C

ity

Sev

ier

Du

ch

es

ne

Car

bo

nS

ou

th S

anp

ete

San

Ju

an

Mill

ard

Mo

rgan

No

rth

San

pet

eE

mer

yJu

abB

eave

rG

ran

dS

ou

th S

um

mit

Ka

ne

No

rth

Su

mm

itG

arfi

eld

Way

ne

Ric

hP

iute

Tin

tic

Da

gg

ett

Do

llarsN

um

be

r o

f S

tud

en

ts

Enrollment Per Pupil Expenditures


Table 55 Utah Public School Enrollment and State of Utah Population

October 1 Annual Percent July 1 Annual Percent Enrollment/Year Enrollment Change Change State Pop Change Change Population

1980 342,885 10,310 3.1% 1,474,000 58,050 4.1% 23.3%1981 354,540 11,655 3.4% 1,515,000 41,000 2.8% 23.4%1982 369,338 14,798 4.2% 1,558,000 43,000 2.8% 23.7%1983 378,208 8,870 2.4% 1,595,000 37,000 2.4% 23.7%1984 390,141 11,933 3.2% 1,622,000 27,000 1.7% 24.1%1985 403,305 13,164 3.4% 1,643,000 21,000 1.3% 24.5%1986 415,994 12,689 3.1% 1,663,000 20,000 1.2% 25.0%1987 423,386 7,392 1.8% 1,678,000 15,000 0.9% 25.2%1988 429,551 6,165 1.5% 1,690,000 12,000 0.7% 25.4%1989 435,762 6,211 1.4% 1,706,000 16,000 0.9% 25.5%1990 444,732 8,970 2.1% 1,729,227 23,227 1.4% 25.7%1991 454,218 9,486 2.1% 1,780,870 51,643 3.0% 25.5%1992 461,259 7,041 1.6% 1,838,149 57,279 3.2% 25.1%1993 468,675 7,416 1.6% 1,889,393 51,244 2.8% 24.8%1994 471,402 2,727 0.6% 1,946,721 57,328 3.0% 24.2%1995 473,666 2,264 0.5% 1,995,228 48,507 2.5% 23.7%1996 478,028 4,362 0.9% 2,042,893 47,665 2.4% 23.4%1997 479,151 1,123 0.2% 2,099,409 56,516 2.8% 22.8%1998 477,061 -2,090 -0.4% 2,141,632 42,223 2.0% 22.3%1999 475,974 -1,087 -0.2% 2,193,014 51,382 2.4% 21.7%2000 475,269 -705 -0.1% 2,246,467 53,453 2.4% 21.2%2001 477,801 2,532 0.5% 2,290,632 44,165 2.0% 20.9%2002 481,143 3,342 0.7% 2,331,826 41,194 1.8% 20.6%2003 486,938 5,795 1.2% 2,372,457 40,631 1.7% 20.5%2004 495,682 8,744 1.8% 2,430,224 57,767 2.4% 20.4%2005 510,012 14,330 2.9% 2,505,844 75,620 3.1% 20.4%2006 525,660 15,648 3.1% 2,576,228 70,384 2.8% 20.4%2007 537,653 11,993 2.3% 2,636,077 59,849 2.3% 20.4%2008 551,013 13,360 2.5% 2,691,122 55,045 2.1% 20.5%2009 563,273 12,260 2.2% 2,731,558 40,437 1.5% 20.6%2010 576,335 13,062 2.3% 2,774,663 43,104 1.6% 20.8%2011 587,745 11,420 2.0% 2,813,923 39,260 1.4% 20.9%2012 600,970 13,225 2.3% 2,856,700 * 42,777 1.5% 21.0%

* The 2012 population number is a forecast

Sources:1. Utah State Office of Education, School Enrollment Counts2. Interagency Common Data Committee (county-level single-year enrollment projections model), October 20083. Governor's Office of Planning and Budget4. Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC)


Tabl

e 56

Fa

ll En

rollm

ent

Dis

tric

t20

0620

0720

0820

0920

1020

1120

07-0

820

07-0

820

08-0

920

09-1

020

10-1

120

07-0

820

07-0

820

08-0

920

09-1

020

10-1

1S

ize

Tota

l C

hang

eP

erce

nt

Cha

nge

Alp

ine

56,0

5158

,665

61,2

2364

,351

66,0

4468

,233

2,61

42,

558

3,12

81,

693

2,18

94.

7%4.

4%5.

1%2.

6%3.

3%1

13

Bea

ver

1,56

41,

562

1,57

71,

600

1,56

61,

540

-215

23-3

4-2

6-0

.1%

1.0%

1.5%

-2.1

%-1

.7%

3134

37B

ox E

lder

10,6

4110

,931

11,1

3211

,052

11,1

8711

,273

290

201

-80

135

862.

7%1.

8%-0

.7%

1.2%

0.8%

1412

17C

ache

13,5

6014

,194

14,5

7914

,917

15,4

0915

,605

634

385

338

492

196

4.7%

2.7%

2.3%

3.3%

1.3%

109

15C

anyo

nsna

nana

33,1

8433

,469

33,4

90na

nana

285

21na

nana

0.9%

0.1%

519

27C

arbo

n3,

475

3,56

23,

502

3,46

23,

458

3,42

387

-60

-40

-4-3

52.

5%-1

.7%

-1.1

%-0

.1%

-1.0

%23

3634

Dag

gett

150

134

142

147

168

169

-16

85

211

-10.

7%6.

0%3.

5%14

.3%

0.6%

4127

19D

avis

62,8

3264

,551

65,0

1465

,452

66,0

1967

,736

1,71

946

343

856

71,

717

2.7%

0.7%

0.7%

0.9%

2.6%

22

8D

uche

sne

3,98

24,

224

4,35

54,

436

4,44

84,

574

242

131

8112

126

6.1%

3.1%

1.9%

0.3%

2.8%

2011

6E

mer

y2,

320

2,26

22,

256

2,31

62,

359

2,31

3-5

8-6

6043

-46

-2.5

%-0

.3%

2.7%

1.9%

-1.9

%29

3938

Gar

field

938

933

911

931

925

927

-5-2

220

-62

-0.5

%-2

.4%

2.2%

-0.6

%0.

2%36

2626

Gra

nd1,

500

1,48

61,

498

1,52

61,

510

1,46

7-1

412

28-1

6-4

3-0

.9%

0.8%

1.9%

-1.0

%-2

.8%

3238

39G

rani

te68

,483

67,9

4868

,403

68,1

3168

,573

67,7

36-5

3545

5-2

7244

2-8

37-0

.8%

0.7%

-0.4

%0.

6%-1

.2%

341

35Iro

n8,

486

8,64

38,

344

8,36

58,

483

8,50

815

7-2

9921

118

251.

9%-3

.5%

0.3%

1.4%

0.3%

1517

23Jo

rdan

78,7

0880

,187

81,0

1748

,411

49,7

2950

,581

1,47

983

0-3

2,60

61,

318

852

1.9%

1.0%

-40.

2%2.

7%1.

7%4

312

Juab

2,07

12,

147

2,20

32,

244

2,28

62,

297

7656

4142

113.

7%2.

6%1.

9%1.

9%0.

5%30

2221

Kan

e1,

188

1,17

81,

202

1,19

41,

176

1,17

5-1

024

-8-1

8-1

-0.8

%2.

0%-0

.7%

-1.5

%-0

.1%

3429

29Lo

gan

5,64

15,

755

5,96

06,

123

6,13

36,

120

114

205

163

10-1

32.

0%3.

6%2.

7%0.

2%-0

.2%

1832

31M

illar

d2,

897

2,85

22,

829

2,82

02,

826

2,81

5-4

5-2

3-9

6-1

1-1

.6%

-0.8

%-0

.3%

0.2%

-0.4

%26

3132

Mor

gan

2,08

32,

183

2,27

62,

338

2,43

72,

421

100

9362

99-1

64.

8%4.

3%2.

7%4.

2%-0

.7%

2733

33M

urra

y6,

352

6,42

66,

458

6,51

56,

500

6,41

774

3257

-15

-83

1.2%

0.5%

0.9%

-0.2

%-1

.3%

1740

36N

ebo

25,6

1526

,588

27,5

9228

,282

29,1

3629

,724

973

1,00

469

085

458

83.

8%3.

8%2.

5%3.

0%2.

0%7

410

Nor

th S

anpe

te2,

321

2,34

02,

329

2,31

92,

419

2,42

019

-11

-10

100

10.

8%-0

.5%

-0.4

%4.

3%0.

0%28

2828

Nor

th S

umm

it98

11,

000

988

1,00

397

898

319

-12

15-2

55

1.9%

-1.2

%1.

5%-2

.5%

0.5%

3525

20O

gden

12,3

5812

,603

12,8

8412

,578

12,5

6812

,652

245

281

-306

-10

842.

0%2.

2%-2

.4%

-0.1

%0.

7%13

1418

Par

k C

ity4,

336

4,44

34,

477

4,56

34,

351

4,40

010

734

86-2

1249

2.5%

0.8%

1.9%

-4.6

%1.

1%22

1616

Piu

te29

830

031

932

830

531

72

199

-23

120.

7%6.

3%2.

8%-7

.0%

3.9%

3921

2P

rovo

13,2

7213

,083

13,2

8813

,241

13,3

7613

,779

-189

205

-47

135

403

-1.4

%1.

6%-0

.4%

1.0%

3.0%

116

5R

ich

436

431

450

457

484

491

-519

727

7-1

.1%

4.4%

1.6%

5.9%

1.4%

3824

14S

alt

Lake

23,8

9423

,536

23,6

7823

,850

23,9

6023

,919

-358

142

172

110

-41

-1.5

%0.

6%0.

7%0.

5%-0

.2%

937

30S

an J

uan

2,87

12,

844

2,88

92,

953

2,91

22,

922

-27

4564

-41

10-0

.9%

1.6%

2.2%

-1.4

%0.

3%25

2322

Sev

ier

4,37

44,

475

4,51

14,

528

4,53

34,

546

101

3617

513

2.3%

0.8%

0.4%

0.1%

0.3%

2120

24S

outh

San

pete

2,85

52,

911

2,95

53,

025

3,03

83,

124

5644

7013

862.

0%1.

5%2.

4%0.

4%2.

8%24

137

Sou

th S

umm

it1,

362

1,37

41,

427

1,42

41,

433

1,45

712

53-3

924

0.9%

3.9%

-0.2

%0.

6%1.

7%33

1813

Tint

ic26

023

823

223

322

021

0-2

2-6

1-1

3-1

0-8

.5%

-2.5

%0.

4%-5

.6%

-4.5

%40

3040

Tooe

le12

,507

12,9

8813

,406

13,1

8013

,439

13,6

7548

141

8-2

2625

923

63.

8%3.

2%-1

.7%

2.0%

1.8%

128

11U

inta

h5,

772

5,95

26,

408

6,48

96,

683

6,99

318

045

681

194

310

3.1%

7.7%

1.3%

3.0%

4.6%

167

1W

asat

ch4,

398

4,58

84,

745

4,95

95,

089

5,25

319

015

721

413

016

44.

3%3.

4%4.

5%2.

6%3.

2%19

104

Was

hing

ton

24,2

9725

,295

25,7

7525

,202

25,6

7126

,206

998

480

-573

469

535

4.1%

1.9%

-2.2

%1.

9%2.

1%8

59

Way

ne53

154

853

156

156

753

917

-17

306

-28

3.2%

-3.1

%5.

6%1.

1%-4

.9%

3735

41W

eber

29,1

3230

,097

29,8

7930

,417

30,3

4730

,423

965

-218

538

-70

763.

3%-0

.7%

1.8%

-0.2

%0.

3%6

1525

Cha

rter

Sch

ools

19,2

1122

,196

27,3

6934

,166

40,1

2144

,892

2,98

55,

173

6,79

75,

955

4,77

115

.5%

23.3

%24

.8%

17.4

%11

.9%

Sta

te o

f Uta

h52

4,00

353

7,65

355

1,01

356

3,27

357

6,33

558

7,74

513

,650

13,3

6012

,260

13,0

6211

,410

2.6%

2.5%

2.2%

2.3%

2.0%

Not

es:

1. B

egin

ning

with

200

7, Y

outh

In C

usto

dy (

YIC

) co

unts

are

no

long

er in

clud

ed in

enr

ollm

ent.

2.

Cou

nts

for

2006

wer

e re

vise

d to

exc

lude

YIC

for

com

para

bilit

y w

ith 2

007

in c

alcu

latin

g gr

owth

.3.

Uta

h S

choo

ls fo

r th

e D

eaf a

nd B

lind

(US

DB

) co

unts

are

not

incl

uded

in a

ny y

ears

. F

or 2

008,

US

DB

rep

orte

d 35

7 st

uden

ts.

4. T

he J

orda

n D

istr

ict

was

div

ided

into

the

Can

yons

Dis

tric

t an

d th

e Jo

rdan

Dis

tric

t in

200

9.

Sou

rce:

Uta

h S

tate

Offi

ce o

f Edu

catio

n

Tota

l Ann

ual C

hang

eP

erce

nt C

hang

e20

11 R

ank


Table 57 Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity

TotalDistrict Student Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Alpine 68,233 504 0.7% 351 0.5% 702 1.0% 5,909 8.7% 894 1.3% 452 0.7% 59,421 87.1%Beaver 1,540 3 0.2% 10 0.6% 17 1.1% 177 11.5% 2 0.1% 5 0.3% 1,326 86.1%Box Elder 11,273 71 0.6% 75 0.7% 82 0.7% 1,037 9.2% 33 0.3% 97 0.9% 9,878 87.6%Cache 15,605 90 0.6% 63 0.4% 89 0.6% 1,286 8.2% 80 0.5% 176 1.1% 13,820 88.6%Canyons 33,490 431 1.3% 353 1.1% 858 2.6% 3,955 11.8% 393 1.2% 843 2.5% 26,657 79.6%Carbon 3,423 13 0.4% 38 1.1% 7 0.2% 414 12.1% 4 0.1% 11 0.3% 2,936 85.8%Daggett 169 0.0% 1 0.6% 1 0.6% 5 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 162 95.9%Davis 67,736 1,024 1.5% 328 0.5% 1,103 1.6% 5,747 8.5% 748 1.1% 851 1.3% 57,935 85.5%Duchesne 4,574 15 0.3% 223 4.9% 8 0.2% 276 6.0% 13 0.3% 96 2.1% 3,943 86.2%Emery 2,313 15 0.6% 18 0.8% 6 0.3% 188 8.1% 4 0.2% 14 0.6% 2,068 89.4%Garfield 927 2 0.2% 14 1.5% 2 0.2% 60 6.5% 1 0.1% 1 0.1% 847 91.4%Grand 1,467 12 0.8% 89 6.1% 20 1.4% 217 14.8% 5 0.3% 4 0.3% 1,120 76.3%Granite 67,736 2,000 3.0% 1,054 1.6% 2,906 4.3% 20,893 30.8% 2,547 3.8% 298 0.4% 38,038 56.2%Iron 8,508 39 0.5% 228 2.7% 37 0.4% 790 9.3% 45 0.5% 161 1.9% 7,208 84.7%Jordan 50,581 469 0.9% 224 0.4% 846 1.7% 5,964 11.8% 777 1.5% 1,399 2.8% 40,902 80.9%Juab 2,297 13 0.6% 6 0.3% 14 0.6% 72 3.1% 7 0.3% 26 1.1% 2,159 94.0%Kane 1,175 5 0.4% 18 1.5% 4 0.3% 42 3.6% 4 0.3% 4 0.3% 1,098 93.4%Logan 6,120 86 1.4% 72 1.2% 239 3.9% 1,540 25.2% 64 1.0% 29 0.5% 4,090 66.8%Millard 2,815 5 0.2% 26 0.9% 17 0.6% 457 16.2% 11 0.4% 27 1.0% 2,272 80.7%Morgan 2,421 10 0.4% 4 0.2% 4 0.2% 58 2.4% 13 0.5% 15 0.6% 2,317 95.7%Murray 6,417 155 2.4% 49 0.8% 129 2.0% 846 13.2% 80 1.2% 96 1.5% 5,062 78.9%Nebo 29,724 184 0.6% 190 0.6% 148 0.5% 2,993 10.1% 225 0.8% 284 1.0% 25,700 86.5%North Sanpete 2,420 12 0.5% 13 0.5% 8 0.3% 291 12.0% 6 0.2% 27 1.1% 2,063 85.2%North Summit 983 3 0.3% 2 0.2% 0.0% 118 12.0% 2 0.2% 19 1.9% 839 85.4%Ogden 12,652 185 1.5% 132 1.0% 107 0.8% 6,099 48.2% 65 0.5% 142 1.1% 5,922 46.8%Park City 4,400 17 0.4% 14 0.3% 71 1.6% 831 18.9% 12 0.3% 92 2.1% 3,363 76.4%Piute 317 6 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 32 10.1% 2 0.6% 0.0% 277 87.4%Provo 13,779 139 1.0% 151 1.1% 348 2.5% 3,669 26.6% 318 2.3% 164 1.2% 8,990 65.2%Rich 491 0.0% 3 0.6% 0.0% 13 2.6% 0.0% 1 0.2% 474 96.5%Salt Lake 23,919 1,053 4.4% 416 1.7% 1,048 4.4% 8,920 37.3% 1,075 4.5% 461 1.9% 10,946 45.8%San Juan 2,922 8 0.3% 1,489 51.0% 3 0.1% 84 2.9% 10 0.3% 21 0.7% 1,307 44.7%Sevier 4,546 24 0.5% 72 1.6% 20 0.4% 214 4.7% 16 0.4% 0.0% 4,200 92.4%South Sanpete 3,124 24 0.8% 18 0.6% 10 0.3% 353 11.3% 21 0.7% 30 1.0% 2,668 85.4%South Summit 1,457 5 0.3% 0.0% 2 0.1% 179 12.3% 0.0% 24 1.6% 1,247 85.6%Tintic 210 0.0% 1 0.5% 0.0% 3 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 206 98.1%Tooele 13,675 151 1.1% 158 1.2% 84 0.6% 1,567 11.5% 156 1.1% 144 1.1% 11,415 83.5%Uintah 6,993 32 0.5% 520 7.4% 21 0.3% 448 6.4% 36 0.5% 71 1.0% 5,865 83.9%Wasatch 5,253 17 0.3% 13 0.2% 29 0.6% 779 14.8% 5 0.1% 18 0.3% 4,392 83.6%Washington 26,206 243 0.9% 470 1.8% 168 0.6% 3,123 11.9% 475 1.8% 112 0.4% 21,615 82.5%Wayne 539 1 0.2% 3 0.6% 3 0.6% 14 2.6% 3 0.6% 6 1.1% 509 94.4%Weber 30,423 287 0.9% 173 0.6% 356 1.2% 3,511 11.5% 181 0.6% 668 2.2% 25,247 83.0%Charter 44,892 540 1.2% 242 0.5% 859 1.9% 4,960 11.0% 606 1.3% 733 1.6% 36,951 82.3%

State of Utah 587,745 7,890 1.3% 7,323 1.2% 10,371 1.8% 88,096 15.0% 8,934 1.5% 7,613 1.3% 457,190 77.8%

Note: Totals may not sum due to undeclared race/ethnicity

Source: Utah State Office of Education

WhiteAfrican Am or

Black American Indian Asian Hispanic/ Latino Pacific Islander Multi Race


Table 58 Utah Selected Data

2012School Meal

FY2011 Class FY2011 ApplicationsPer Student of 2011 Pupil- At or below Percent of

Current Graduation Teacher 185% of the DistrictDistrict Expenditures Rank Rate Rank Ratio Rank Poverty Level Enrollment Rank

State of Utah $6,378 - 76.0% - 21.3 - 218,053 37.0% -

Alpine 5,607 41 76.1% 29 27.8 1 17,392 25.5% 38Beaver 7,321 20 76.9% 27 20.2 19 746 48.4% 15Box Elder 6,097 39 80.0% 22 19.6 21 4,495 39.9% 26Cache 6,459 28 88.5% 11 22.8 4 5,538 35.5% 28Canyons 6,350 32 83.1% 17 22.2 7 10,352 30.9% 33Carbon 8,105 13 85.0% 15 17.1 31 1,704 49.8% 14Daggett 16,299 1 100.0% 1 13.9 39 38 22.5% 39Davis 6,192 37 81.7% 20 22.9 3 17,276 25.5% 37Duchesne 7,045 24 74.5% 35 17.8 30 1,334 29.2% 34Emery 8,591 11 91.6% 5 18.5 28 1,080 46.7% 20Garfield 10,925 7 80.7% 21 14.9 37 441 47.6% 17Grand 7,629 17 89.5% 9 19.6 23 789 53.8% 6Granite 6,260 33 64.9% 38 22.6 6 31,778 46.9% 19Iron 6,445 29 77.4% 26 20.3 17 4,385 51.5% 11Jordan 5,610 40 77.5% 25 22.7 5 13,620 27.1% 36Juab 6,255 34 82.2% 18 22.0 8 925 40.3% 25Kane 10,205 8 74.8% 34 16.4 32 552 47.0% 18Logan 6,951 25 75.3% 31 21.1 13 3,633 59.4% 5Millard 8,917 10 87.1% 12 16.2 34 1,464 52.0% 9Morgan 6,199 36 91.8% 4 21.4 10 668 27.6% 35Murray 6,431 30 83.9% 16 21.3 12 2,190 34.1% 30Nebo 6,114 38 86.4% 13 21.7 9 11,024 37.1% 27No. Sanpete 7,222 21 58.2% 41 21.0 14 1,275 52.7% 7No. Summit 8,532 12 89.9% 8 18.3 29 340 34.6% 29Ogden 7,788 16 60.8% 40 21.3 11 9,243 73.1% 1Park City 11,217 6 89.5% 10 16.2 33 974 22.1% 40Piute 13,593 3 96.0% 3 12.5 40 218 68.8% 2Provo 7,051 23 70.2% 36 18.6 27 6,607 47.9% 16Rich 11,451 5 96.8% 2 14.7 38 256 52.1% 8Salt Lake 7,843 15 62.2% 39 19.6 22 15,521 64.9% 4San Juan 11,503 4 76.0% 30 15.3 35 1,913 65.5% 3Sevier 7,093 22 75.0% 32 19.5 25 2,360 51.9% 10So. Sanpete 7,526 18 78.3% 24 20.2 20 1,590 50.9% 12So. Summit 7,917 14 90.5% 7 19.5 24 312 21.4% 41Tintic 14,494 2 81.8% 19 8.5 41 105 50.0% 13Tooele 6,352 31 79.4% 23 20.3 16 5,697 41.7% 24Uintah 6,514 27 67.6% 37 26.8 2 3,072 43.9% 23Wasatch 7,340 19 85.5% 14 18.7 26 1,746 33.2% 32Washington 6,677 26 75.0% 33 20.3 15 11,796 45.0% 22Wayne 9,435 9 91.4% 6 15.2 36 245 45.5% 21Weber 6,205 35 76.8% 28 20.3 18 10,258 33.7% 31

Charter Schools 5,236 - 67.0% - 21.0 - 13,101 29.2% -

Source: Utah State Office of Education, Finance and Statistics, Testing and Assessment, and Child NutritionPrograms


Table 59 Fiscal Year 2009 Selected Data by State

FY 2009Current

FY 2009 FY 2009 CY 2009 Total Expenditures FY 2009 1-Oct-08 Total Current Current Personal as a % of Pupil/

(FY 2009) Expenditures Expenditures Income Personal TeacherState Enrollment (thousands) Per Pupil Rank (millions) Income* Rank Ratio Rank

United States 49,265,572 $610,109,923 $10,591 - $12,015,535 5.1% - 15.3 -

Alabama 745,668 7,866,617 9,042 37 155,840 5.0% 26 15.6 18Alaska 130,662 2,359,510 15,353 4 29,757 7.9% 1 16.5 13Arizona 1,087,817 10,451,060 7,929 48 217,235 4.8% 35 19.9 3Arkansas 478,965 4,862,688 8,854 40 92,307 5.3% 16 12.9 42California 6,322,528 72,059,482 9,503 34 1,564,389 4.6% 39 20.8 2Colorado 818,443 8,732,152 8,782 41 207,742 4.2% 48 16.8 10Connecticut 567,198 9,904,492 15,353 5 191,385 5.2% 23 11.7 49Delaware 125,430 1,843,876 12,109 15 35,243 5.2% 19 15.1 20District of Columbia 68,681 1,865,053 19,698 1 39,578 4.7% 36 12.9 41Florida 2,631,020 29,197,311 8,867 39 700,361 4.2% 49 14.1 28Georgia 1,655,792 18,989,232 9,649 31 332,091 5.7% 10 13.9 30Hawaii 179,478 2,423,593 12,399 12 54,409 4.5% 42 15.9 15Idaho 275,051 2,370,488 7,118 50 48,898 4.8% 34 18.2 7Illinois 2,119,707 27,273,680 11,592 16 534,638 5.1% 25 15.6 17Indiana 1,046,147 11,069,893 9,254 35 216,618 5.1% 24 16.7 11Iowa 487,559 5,517,616 10,055 27 110,541 5.0% 28 13.6 36Kansas 471,060 5,389,538 10,201 25 106,875 5.0% 27 13.1 40Kentucky 670,030 6,839,799 9,038 38 137,546 5.0% 29 15.4 19Louisiana 684,873 8,269,661 10,625 23 159,499 5.2% 21 16.6 12Maine 192,935 2,579,168 12,183 14 48,441 5.3% 15 12.1 47Maryland 843,861 12,753,441 13,737 10 275,201 4.6% 38 14.3 27Massachusetts 958,910 15,081,541 14,540 9 328,858 4.6% 40 13.6 34Michigan 1,659,921 19,897,270 10,373 24 339,219 5.9% 6 17.5 8Minnesota 836,048 11,332,655 11,088 18 218,823 5.2% 22 15.7 16Mississippi 491,962 4,402,170 8,064 46 88,864 5.0% 30 14.7 22Missouri 917,871 10,466,632 9,891 28 213,610 4.9% 32 13.5 38Montana 141,899 1,624,979 10,189 26 33,154 4.9% 31 13.6 37Nebraska 292,590 3,579,827 10,846 21 68,417 5.2% 18 13.3 39Nevada 433,371 4,550,664 8,321 45 101,966 4.5% 41 19.7 4New Hampshire 197,934 2,655,947 12,583 11 56,732 4.7% 37 12.6 44New Jersey 1,381,420 25,623,867 17,076 3 438,111 5.8% 8 12.0 48New Mexico 330,245 3,912,992 9,648 32 66,304 5.9% 5 14.5 25New York 2,740,592 54,766,076 17,746 2 917,610 6.0% 4 12.6 45North Carolina 1,488,645 14,242,947 8,518 44 323,204 4.4% 43 13.6 35North Dakota 94,728 1,046,126 9,802 29 25,570 4.1% 50 11.6 50Ohio 1,817,163 22,901,610 10,902 20 408,395 5.6% 11 16.1 14Oklahoma 645,108 5,622,898 7,878 49 130,037 4.3% 46 13.9 31Oregon 575,393 6,624,906 9,611 33 136,449 4.9% 33 19.1 5Pennsylvania 1,775,029 26,001,339 12,299 13 498,868 5.2% 20 13.7 32Rhode Island 145,342 2,259,628 14,719 7 43,185 5.2% 17 12.8 43South Carolina 718,113 8,378,028 9,228 36 145,041 5.8% 9 14.4 26South Dakota 126,429 1,273,677 8,543 43 30,006 4.2% 47 13.7 33Tennessee 971,950 8,645,029 7,992 47 214,633 4.0% 51 15.0 21Texas 4,752,148 52,980,125 8,562 42 904,166 5.9% 7 14.5 24Utah 559,778 4,754,524 6,612 51 85,975 5.5% 12 23.7 1Vermont 93,625 1,501,278 15,096 6 23,939 6.3% 3 10.7 51Virginia 1,235,795 15,155,776 10,928 19 345,841 4.4% 45 17.3 9Washington 1,037,018 12,226,885 9,688 30 278,236 4.4% 44 19.1 6West Virginia 282,729 3,196,380 10,821 22 58,631 5.5% 13 14.0 29Wisconsin 873,750 11,135,130 11,183 17 208,220 5.3% 14 14.7 23Wyoming 87,161 1,650,665 14,628 8 24,876 6.6% 2 12.5 46

* Excludes expenditures for adult education, community services, and other nonelementary-secondary programs.

Sources:1. National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data2. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 125 Higher Education UT

Utah System of Higher Education University of Utah is the state’s flagship university serving as a premier research institution and enhancing the state’s repu-tation for quality in higher education instruction, research and innovation, especially at the graduate level. The University of Utah serves as a major research institution that contributes to the economic base of Utah through innovation, technology transfer and commercialization, and is expected to be a leader in the success and expansion of the USTAR initiative. As a research university, the University of Utah not only teaches and creates new knowledge but also nurtures entrepreneurs. The U of U reaches out to its diverse student body and to the larger community with top-rated academic departments, ex-tensive service-learning opportunities, wide-ranging cultural offerings, innovative medical programs and membership in the expanded PAC-12 Conference. Utah State University serves as the state’s land-grant institu-tion as a leader in providing research, public service and edu-cation to meet needs in all areas of Utah. In addition to its extension services, USU also plays a vital role in providing access to higher education opportunities through its commu-nity college role at its regional campuses and in areas of the state without easy access to higher education. The public service mission is exemplified by USU’s land-grant history and cooperative Extension services, which provide the latest practical research results to every county of the state and adapt to serve urban and rural communities. Snow College is the state’s premier rural, residential two–year college providing college-age students with the oppor-tunity for a higher education experience in a small and per-sonalized residential campus setting. In addition to providing general education courses, the college provides career and technical education, primarily at its Richfield campus. Snow offers a broad range of general/liberal education and voca-tional/technical programs leading to Associate of Arts, Sci-ence, or Applied Science degrees in addition to numerous specialized, short-term vocational training certificates and diplomas. Weber State University is the state’s first comprehensive regional state university that also retains a community college mission, while serving as an educational, cultural and eco-nomic center for its region. As a leader in undergraduate education, WSU offers associate’s, bachelor’s and selected

master’s degrees in a variety of arts, sciences, technical and professional fields. WSU provides excellent educational ex-periences for its students through extensive personal contact among faculty, staff and students in and out of the classroom. WSU, in partnership with the broader community, engages in research, artistic expression, public service, economic devel-opment and community-based learning experiences in an environment that encourages freedom of expression while valuing diversity. Southern Utah University is the state’s designated liberal arts and sciences university. It provides a broad-based, en-gaged college experience for students of high academic achievement, stressing experiential, integrative and personal-ized learning in a residential setting. SUU serves the entire state of Utah while maintaining varied programs to meet unique regional needs and concerns. It is a destination for students interested in educational experiences typical of a private university with the affordability of a public institution with a particular focus on high quality programs in the arts, sciences, pre-professional, professional and graduate fields. The university educates students to be critical thinkers, effec-tive communicators, lifelong learners and individuals who demonstrate integrity and empathy as they pursue their life’s ambitions. Dixie State College of Utah is an open access, comprehen-sive community college with a mission of providing general and liberal education as well as applied technology programs. Students may earn Associate of Arts, Science or Applied Sci-ence degrees, certificates and Baccalaureate degrees. DSC is also dedicated to serving its student community with small class sizes, passionate faculty and staff members who are striving to make the student experience memorable. As the fastest growing school in the state, DSC is an open enroll-ment institution that believes in educational access for all students. DSC enhances its campus climate by promoting cultural and demographic diversity, and by inviting students to participate in its open door, post-secondary educational programs. Utah Valley University is a teaching institution dedicated to student success through certificates and diplomas—from a wide array of associate degrees to a broad selection of bacca-laureate degrees and a targeted number of master’s degrees. UVU is regarded by the Carnegie Foundation as a “community engaged” institution committed to preparing students for professional life through “engaged learning” and participation in serving the needs of the local community. As a community engaged university, UVU will develop and maintain productive partnerships with government, civic as-sociations and private industry. Salt Lake Community College is Utah’s largest and most diverse institution of higher education as an open access, comprehensive community college. Offering a full range of

Higher Education

The Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) consists of eight public colleges and universities governed system-wide by the Utah State Board of Regents and on an institutional level by Boards of Trustees. The eight institutions allow stu-dents to choose where they wish to study, from research and regional universities to comprehensive community colleges, based on their individual learning styles, needs, expectations, and circumstances.


academic programs and economic development opportuni-ties, SLCC specializes in career and technical education as well as general education for transfer to four-year institutions. SLCC is a leader in the translation of occupational competen-cies into college credit and continues to lead efforts in small business innovation, growth and sustainability through train-ing and access to a business development infrastructure. All of the institutions within the Utah System of Higher Edu-cation are committed to providing challenging and useful instruction and a well-rounded student experience that in-cludes cultural and athletic activities, counseling and career services, as well as wellness programs. USHE offers various programs of study to fit the needs of any prospective student, from one-year certificates to four-year degrees and beyond. Higher education represents an investment in the future of students, families and communities, and is essential to the future economic prosperity of the state. USHE is committed to "building a stronger state of minds," and continues to con-tribute to Utah’s future by enhancing student preparation, participation and completion. Benefits of Higher Education A 2011 study conducted by Utah-based Dan Jones and Asso-ciates indicates that completion of a postsecondary degree or certificate has a significant impact across a range of different measures, including: income and employment; career satisfac-tion and confidence; personal happiness; and community engagement. Additionally, this study shows that individuals who have parents and/or siblings who completed a postsec-ondary degree or certificate are significantly more likely to earn these types of credentials themselves. There are tremendous social benefits from higher education. For instance, degree or certificate holders are: 11% more like-ly to have good health; 50% more likely to have voted in the last state election; and 57% more involved in their communi-ties. Further, individuals with higher education earn higher incomes and experience less unemployment. For those with-out a high school diploma, the median wage is less than $20,000, while the unemployment rate is over 8.0%. In con-trast, for those with a graduate degree, the median wage is about $65,000 and the unemployment rate is less than 2.0%. Income and employment are important determinants of indi-vidual well-being. More importantly, the fact that higher edu-cation leads to more income and less unemployment for indi-viduals suggests a more educated workforce can boost productivity for the economy as a whole. Enrollment Student enrollment continues to surge at Utah’s colleges and universities. Fall enrollment for 2011 increased by 1.7% over the previous year. Since 2008, enrollment has consistently grown for full time equivalent (FTE) students. Enrollment is projected to increase over the next ten years, and is essential to 66% of Utah’s workforce holding a degree or certificate by 2020.

Utah's higher education population is becoming increasingly diverse, especially among Hispanic, African American and female students. In headcount for Fall 2011, Hispanic or Latino populations grew by 26.2%, African American popula-tions grew by 9.5% and female populations grew by 2%. Financing Higher education is funded from state funds and student tui-tion dollars. The General and Education funds receive ap-proximately 51% from state appropriations with student tui-tion accountings for approximately 49% of the higher educa-tion budgets. In 2011-2012, the Governor and Legislature provided a 1% increase to the General Budget to accommo-date enrollment. Degrees and Awards While Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the country, the percent of Utahns with a bachelor’s degree is lower than the national average. Utah ranks 17th in the percent people 25 years and over with bachelor's degrees at 29.7% and 14th in the percent of people with high school diplomas at 90.3%. USHE institutions awarded 29,976 certif-icates and degrees in 2010-11, of which 13,699 were bache-lor's degrees, with the top fields of study being Business and Marketing followed by Social Sciences, Education and Health Professions.


Figure 49 Utah System of Higher Education Enrollment Fall Third Week Headcount

Figure 50 USHE Education and General Revenue Trends

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: USHE Annual Data Books for Fall Third Week Enrollment

Source: USHE Annual Data Book

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

State Tax Appropriation Tuition and Fees Other Revenue


Figure 51 Median Wages, Taxes, and Unemployment by Education Level

Figure 52 Percentage of Individuals Ages 25 and Older Living in Households Participating in Public Assistance by Education Level: 2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey; Utah Taxpayers Association (11.5% tax rate)

Sources: The College Board, Education Pays 2010, Figure 1.15; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009; calculations by the authors.

38%

18% 18%21%

8% 8%

16%

7% 6%

14%

5% 4%7%

1% 1%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Medicaid School Lunch Food Stamps

Not a High School Graduate High School Graduate Some College, No Degree

Associate Degree Bachelor's Degree or Higher

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

Less than HighSchool Diploma

High SchoolDiploma

Some College,Certificates, &

Associate Degrees

Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree

Un

em

plo

ymen

t Rate

Med

ian

Wag

e

Median Wage Estimated Taxes Paid Unemployment Rate


Figure 53 Volunteering Rates Among Individuals Ages 25 and Older and Median Number of Hours Volunteered by Education Level: 2009

Figure 54 State & Local Support Per FTE Student: 2011

Source: USHE Annual Data Books for Fall Third Week Enrollment

Source: SHEOO Finance Survey 2011

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Ve

rmo

nt

Ne

w H

amp

sh

ire

Co

lora

do

So

uth

Ca

roli

na

Ore

go

nO

hio

Mo

nta

na

Ind

ian

aS

ou

th D

ako

taW

est

Vir

gin

iaIo

wa

Mic

hig

anP

en

nsy

lvan

iaR

ho

de

Isla

nd

Min

nes

ota

Vir

gin

iaA

lab

am

aU

tah

Flo

rid

aM

iss

issi

pp

iK

ansa

sD

elaw

are

Was

hin

gto

nA

rkan

sas

Ari

zon

aM

isso

uri

Idah

oU

.S.

Okl

aho

ma

Ma

ine

Ten

nes

see

Ke

ntu

cky

No

rth

Dak

ota

Wis

con

sin

Cal

ifo

rnia

Tex

as

Mas

sach

use

tts

Geo

rgia

Mar

yla

nd

Lo

uis

ian

aN

evad

aN

ew J

erse

yN

ebra

ska

Illin

ois

Ne

w M

exic

oN

ew Y

ork

No

rth

Car

olin

aC

on

ne

ctic

ut

Haw

aii

Wyo

min

gA

lask

a

9%

19%

30%

43%

4548

50

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Not a High SchoolGraduate

High School Graduate Some College orAssociate Degree

Bachelor's Degree orHigher

Ho

urs

Vo

lun

teer

ing

Ra

te


Figure 55 Credentials & Degrees Awarded per $100,000 of State, Local & Tuition and Fee Revenues Public Colleges & Universities: 2010

Figure 56 Percent of Population Age 25 and Older with an Associates Degree or Higher

Source: Higheredinfo.org

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey

0.89

1.89

2.35

3.03

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Ala

ska

Co

nn

ecti

cut

Del

awar

eW

yom

ing

Ve

rmo

nt

Neb

rask

aH

awai

iN

ew J

erse

yN

ew M

exic

oN

ort

h C

aro

lina

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dP

en

nsy

lvan

iaO

reg

on

New

Yo

rkW

isco

nsi

nO

hio

Cal

ifo

rnia

Ind

ian

aM

ain

eIll

ino

isT

exas

Mic

hig

anM

assa

chu

sett

sId

ah

oM

aryl

and

Ari

zon

aS

ou

th C

aro

lina

Ala

ba

ma

U.S

.Io

wa

No

rth

Dak

ota

Ken

tuck

yT

enn

esse

eM

inn

eso

taK

ansa

sO

klah

om

aN

ew H

amp

shir

eW

est

Vir

gin

iaG

eorg

iaV

irg

inia

Mis

siss

ipp

iW

ash

ing

ton

Ark

ansa

sN

evad

aM

on

tan

aL

ou

isia

na

So

uth

Da

kota

Mis

sou

riU

tah

Co

lora

do

Flo

rid

a24.9

36.3

39.0

55.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Wes

t V

irg

inia

Ark

ansa

s

Lo

uis

ian

a

Ken

tuck

y

Mis

siss

ipp

i

Ten

nes

see

Ala

ba

ma

Nev

ada

Okl

aho

ma

Ind

ian

a

Oh

io

So

uth

Ca

rolin

a

Tex

as

New

Mex

ico

Mis

sou

ri

Ala

ska

Mic

hig

an

Idah

o

Geo

rgia

Pe

nn

sylv

ania

Flo

rid

a

Wyo

min

g

Ari

zon

a

No

rth

Car

olin

a

Del

awar

e

So

uth

Da

kota

Wis

con

sin

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Iow

a

Mo

nta

na

Mai

ne

Kan

sas

Ore

go

n

Neb

rask

a

Cal

ifo

rnia

Illin

ois

Uta

h

Haw

aii

No

rth

Dak

ota

Rh

od

e Is

lan

d

New

Yo

rk

New

Jer

sey

Was

hin

gto

n

Vir

gin

ia

Min

nes

ota

New

Ham

psh

ire

Mar

ylan

d

Co

nn

ecti

cut

Ve

rmo

nt

Co

lora

do

Mas

sach

use

tts

Dis

tric

t o

f C

olu

mb

ia


Table 60 Utah System of Higher Education and State of Utah Population

Fall Annual Percent July 1 Annual Percent Enrollment/

Year Enrollment Change Change State Pop3 Change Change Population

1976 55,586 1,272,050 4.4%1977 56,838 1,252 2.3% 1,315,950 43,900 3.5% 4.3%1978 56,588 -250 -0.4% 1,363,750 47,800 3.6% 4.1%1979 57,641 1,053 1.9% 1,415,950 52,200 3.8% 4.1%1980 61,115 3,474 6.0% 1,474,000 58,050 4.1% 4.1%1981 63,090 1,975 3.2% 1,515,000 41,000 2.8% 4.2%1982 67,056 3,966 6.3% 1,558,000 43,000 2.8% 4.3%1983 69,579 2,523 3.8% 1,595,000 37,000 2.4% 4.4%1984 69,212 -367 -0.5% 1,622,000 27,000 1.7% 4.3%1985 70,615 1,403 2.0% 1,643,000 21,000 1.3% 4.3%1986 72,674 2,059 2.9% 1,663,000 20,000 1.2% 4.4%1987 73,088 414 0.6% 1,678,000 15,000 0.9% 4.4%1988 74,929 1,841 2.5% 1,690,000 12,000 0.7% 4.4%1989 74,884 -45 -0.1% 1,706,000 16,000 0.9% 4.4%1990 80,430 5,546 7.4% 1,729,227 23,227 1.4% 4.7%1991 86,843 6,413 8.0% 1,780,870 51,643 3.0% 4.9%1992 94,923 8,080 9.3% 1,838,149 57,279 3.2% 5.2%1993 99,163 4,240 4.5% 1,889,393 51,244 2.8% 5.2%1994 103,633 4,470 4.5% 1,946,721 57,328 3.0% 5.3%1995 110,594 6,961 6.7% 1,995,228 48,507 2.5% 5.5%1996 112,666 2,072 1.9% 2,042,893 47,665 2.4% 5.5%1997 116,047 3,381 3.0% 2,099,409 56,516 2.8% 5.5%1998 121,053 5,006 4.3% 2,141,632 42,223 2.0% 5.7%1999 113,704 -7,349 -6.1% 2,193,014 51,382 2.4% 5.2%2000 122,417 8,713 7.7% 2,246,467 53,539 2.4% 5.4%2001 126,377 3,960 3.2% 2,290,632 44,165 2.0% 5.5%2002 134,939 8,562 6.8% 2,331,826 41,194 1.8% 5.8%2003 138,625 3,686 2.7% 2,372,457 40,631 1.7% 5.8%2004 140,933 2,308 1.7% 2,430,224 57,767 2.4% 5.8%2005 144,937 4,004 2.8% 2,505,844 75,620 3.1% 5.8%2006 144,302 -635 -0.4% 2,576,228 70,384 2.8% 5.6%2007 140,397 -3,905 -2.7% 2,636,077 59,849 2.3% 5.3%2008 152,228 11,831 8.4% 2,691,122 55,045 2.1% 5.7%2009 164,860 12,632 8.3% 2,731,558 40,437 1.5% 6.0%2010 171,178 6,318 3.8% 2,774,663 43,104 1.6% 6.2%2011 174,013 2,835 1.7% 2,813,923 39,260 1.4% 6.2%

Sources:1. Utah System of Higher Education2. Common Data Committee3. Utah Population Estimates Committee


Tabl

e 61

U

tah

Syst

em o

f Hig

her E

duca

tion

Enro

llmen

t by

Cou

nty

Tota

l Ann

ual C

hang

eP

erce

nt C

hang

eR

ank

Fal

lF

all

Fal

lF

all

Cou

nty

2008

2009

2010

2011

Cha

nge

Bea

ver

364

366

405

350

239

-55

0.5%

10.7

%-1

3.6%

2525

0B

ox E

lder

2,18

1

2,25

5

2,26

5

2,38

7

7410

122

3.4%

0.4%

5.4%

1111

0C

ache

5,36

5

5,47

1

5,57

0

5,47

1

106

99-9

92.

0%1.

8%-1

.8%

99

0C

arbo

n1,

046

1,

112

1,

114

71

7

66

2-3

976.

3%0.

2%-3

5.6%

1817

-1D

agge

tt28

34

32

26

6

-2-6

21.4

%-5

.9%

-18.

8%32

320

Dav

is14

,653

15,1

54

16

,340

17,5

91

50

11,

186

1,25

13.

4%7.

8%7.

7%4

40

Duc

hesn

e43

7

47

2

53

2

52

6

35

60-6

8.0%

12.7

%-1

.1%

2224

2E

mer

y66

4

53

0

72

0

52

0

-1

3419

0-2

00-2

0.2%

35.8

%-2

7.8%

2320

-3G

arfie

ld19

0

20

5

17

4

20

9

15

-31

357.

9%-1

5.1%

20.1

%28

291

Gra

nd20

6

25

5

25

5

22

7

49

0-2

823

.8%

0.0%

-11.

0%27

270

Iron

2,49

7

2,56

2

2,68

0

2,73

8

6511

858

2.6%

4.6%

2.2%

1010

0Ju

ab55

6

63

7

71

2

66

1

81

75-5

114

.6%

11.8

%-7

.2%

2021

1K

ane

251

282

279

242

31-3

-37

12.4

%-1

.1%

-13.

3%26

260

Mill

ard

853

873

869

934

20-4

652.

3%-0

.5%

7.5%

1718

1M

orga

n51

3

55

9

55

1

56

1

46

-810

9.0%

-1.4

%1.

8%21

232

Piu

te75

12

8

11

2

10

3

53

-16

-970

.7%

-12.

5%-8

.0%

3131

0R

ich

85

87

114

105

227

-92.

4%31

.0%

-7.9

%30

300

Sal

t La

ke46

,540

46,2

27

46

,714

46,5

29

-3

1348

7-1

85-0

.7%

1.1%

-0.4

%1

10

San

Jua

n62

2

64

0

72

5

43

8

18

85-2

872.

9%13

.3%

-39.

6%24

19-5

San

pete

1,51

2

1,50

4

1,59

4

1,70

4

-890

110

-0.5

%6.

0%6.

9%13

130

Sev

ier

1,27

7

1,44

1

1,40

6

1,23

7

164

-35

-169

12.8

%-2

.4%

-12.

0%15

150

Sum

mit

1,36

6

1,39

2

1,49

6

1,50

0

2610

44

1.9%

7.5%

0.3%

1414

0To

oele

1,66

0

1,81

3

1,86

5

2,05

1

153

5218

69.

2%2.

9%10

.0%

1212

0U

inta

h56

2

62

2

69

6

69

5

60

74-1

10.7

%11

.9%

-0.1

%19

223

Uta

h 22

,126

24,4

52

26

,597

27,3

09

2,

326

2,14

571

210

.5%

8.8%

2.7%

22

0W

asat

ch1,

104

1,

095

1,

227

1,

216

-9

132

-11

-0.8

%12

.1%

-0.9

%16

160

Was

hing

ton

5,63

4

6,83

3

7,45

3

7,52

7

1,19

962

074

21.3

%9.

1%1.

0%6

71

Way

ne16

5

17

5

18

4

15

7

10

9-2

76.

1%5.

1%-1

4.7%

2928

-1W

eber

9,35

1

9,70

3

10,3

21

11

,384

352

618

1,06

33.

8%6.

4%10

.3%

55

0O

ther

US

Loc

atio

ns17

,804

22,0

97

23

,484

24,4

60

4,

293

1,38

797

624

.1%

6.3%

4.2%

33

0F

orei

gn L

ocat

ions

6,75

6

5,49

9

6,35

9

6,98

5

-1,2

5786

062

6-1

8.6%

15.6

%9.

8%8

80

Unk

now

n/U

nide

ntifi

ed5,

785

10

,385

8,33

3

7,45

3

4,60

0-2

,052

-880

79.5

%-1

9.8%

-10.

6%7

6-1

Tota

l15

2,22

8

164,

860

17

1,17

8

174,

013

12

,632

6,31

82,

835

8.3%

3.8%

1.7%

Sou

rce:

Uta

h S

yste

m o

f Hig

her

Edu

catio

n

Siz

eP

revi

ous

2008

to

2009

2009

to

2010

2010

to

2011

2007

to

2008

2008

to

2009

2009

to

2010


Tabl

e 62

Fa

ll Se

mes

ter 2

011

(Thi

rd W

eek)

Tot

al H

eadc

ount

Enr

ollm

ent B

y C

ount

y of

Orig

in a

nd E

thni

city

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Stu

de

nts

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Nu

mb

er

Pe

rce

nt

Bea

ver

41.

1%15

4.3%

41.

1%3

0.9%

30.

9%30

988

.3%

102.

9%1

0.3%

10.

3%35

00.

2%B

ox E

lder

160.

7%10

74.

5%55

2.3%

20.

1%5

0.2%

2,01

984

.6%

162

6.8%

30.

1%18

0.8%

2,38

71.

4%C

ache

330.

6%26

04.

8%75

1.4%

140.

3%37

0.7%

4,74

386

.7%

253

4.6%

130.

2%43

0.8%

5,47

13.

1%C

arbo

n8

1.1%

608.

4%8

1.1%

00.

0%1

0.1%

554

77.3

%77

10.7

%3

0.4%

60.

8%71

70.

4%D

agge

tt0

0.0%

13.

8%0

0.0%

00.

0%0

0.0%

2284

.6%

311

.5%

00.

0%0

0.0%

260.

0%D

avis

610.

3%97

25.

5%27

41.

6%68

0.4%

161

0.9%

12,5

2571

.2%

3,40

619

.4%

100.

1%11

40.

6%17

,591

10.1

%D

uche

sne

122.

3%12

2.3%

20.

4%0

0.0%

10.

2%46

588

.4%

285.

3%0

0.0%

61.

1%52

60.

3%E

mer

y5

1.0%

112.

1%7

1.3%

20.

4%3

0.6%

439

84.4

%52

10.0

%0

0.0%

10.

2%52

00.

3%G

arfie

ld1

0.5%

62.

9%4

1.9%

00.

0%0

0.0%

185

88.5

%13

6.2%

00.

0%0

0.0%

209

0.1%

Gra

nd3

1.3%

94.

0%1

0.4%

00.

0%0

0.0%

200

88.5

%9

4.0%

00.

0%4

1.8%

226

0.1%

Iron

401.

5%12

54.

6%29

1.1%

120.

4%17

0.6%

2,41

188

.1%

983.

6%2

0.1%

40.

1%2,

738

1.6%

Juab

40.

6%13

2.0%

30.

5%2

0.3%

20.

3%59

189

.4%

416.

2%2

0.3%

30.

5%66

10.

4%K

ane

00.

0%5

2.1%

20.

8%1

0.4%

00.

0%20

886

.0%

239.

5%2

0.8%

10.

4%24

20.

1%M

illar

d6

0.6%

404.

3%3

0.3%

10.

1%1

0.1%

832

89.1

%50

5.4%

00.

0%1

0.1%

934

0.5%

Mor

gan

10.

2%16

2.9%

10.

2%0

0.0%

10.

2%47

584

.7%

6611

.8%

00.

0%1

0.2%

561

0.3%

Piu

te1

1.0%

43.

9%1

1.0%

11.

0%0

0.0%

9491

.3%

21.

9%0

0.0%

00.

0%10

30.

1%R

ich

00.

0%2

1.9%

00.

0%0

0.0%

00.

0%86

82.7

%15

14.4

%0

0.0%

11.

0%10

40.

1%S

alt

Lake

313

0.7%

4,19

39.

0%1,

735

3.7%

518

1.1%

737

1.6%

35,6

5276

.6%

3,23

87.

0%54

0.1%

890.

2%46

,529

26.7

%S

an J

uan

114

26.0

%12

2.7%

30.

7%0

0.0%

10.

2%28

164

.2%

245.

5%1

0.2%

20.

5%43

80.

3%S

anpe

te17

1.0%

875.

1%7

0.4%

140.

8%3

0.2%

1,43

884

.4%

127

7.5%

60.

4%5

0.3%

1,70

41.

0%S

evie

r28

2.3%

362.

9%3

0.2%

40.

3%4

0.3%

1,11

890

.4%

443.

6%0

0.0%

00.

0%1,

237

0.7%

Sum

mitt

40.

3%74

4.9%

171.

1%1

0.1%

30.

2%1,

273

84.9

%12

28.

1%3

0.2%

30.

2%1,

500

0.9%

Tooe

le21

1.0%

157

7.7%

110.

5%14

0.7%

130.

6%1,

605

78.3

%21

610

.5%

30.

1%11

0.5%

2,05

11.

2%U

nita

h20

2.9%

385.

5%7

1.0%

10.

1%2

0.3%

593

85.3

%23

3.3%

00.

0%11

1.6%

695

0.4%

Uta

h 22

50.

8%2,

434

8.9%

308

1.1%

275

1.0%

191

0.7%

21,2

8377

.9%

2,19

18.

0%34

0.1%

368

1.3%

27,3

0915

.7%

Was

ach

30.

2%65

5.3%

110.

9%8

0.7%

10.

1%1,

002

82.4

%11

49.

4%2

0.2%

100.

8%1,

216

0.7%

Was

hing

ton

741.

0%44

05.

8%66

0.9%

971.

3%39

0.5%

6,53

986

.9%

203

2.7%

70.

1%62

0.8%

7,52

74.

3%W

ayne

31.

9%4

2.5%

10.

6%0

0.0%

00.

0%14

189

.8%

74.

5%0

0.0%

10.

6%15

70.

1%W

eber

480.

4%93

38.

2%17

81.

6%19

0.2%

103

0.9%

7,35

964

.6%

2,65

523

.3%

90.

1%80

0.7%

11,3

846.

5%O

ther

US

Loc

atio

ns40

71.

7%1,

710

7.0%

510

2.1%

208

0.9%

690

2.8%

15,3

5562

.8%

5,25

821

.5%

980.

4%22

40.

9%24

,460

14.1

%F

orei

gn L

ocat

ions

130.

2%61

38.

8%49

47.

1%48

0.7%

133

1.9%

610

8.7%

890

12.7

%4,

179

59.8

%5

0.1%

6,98

54.

0%U

nkno

wn/

Uni

dent

ified

242

3.2%

397

5.3%

104

1.4%

350.

5%53

0.7%

5,59

575

.1%

823

11.0

%15

82.

1%46

0.6%

7,45

34.

3%

Tota

l1,

727

1.0%

12,8

517.

4%3,

924

2.3%

1,34

80.

8%2,

205

1.3%

126,

002

72.4

%20

,243

11.6

%4,

590

2.6%

1121

0.6%

174,

011

100.

0%

Not

e: S

tude

nts

who

wer

e lis

ted

with

bot

h an

rac

e/et

hnic

ity c

ode

and

as n

on-r

esid

ent

alie

ns a

re r

epor

ted

as n

on-r

esid

ent

alie

ns.

Sou

rce:

Uta

h S

yste

m o

f Hig

her

Edu

catio

n

Mu

ltip

leU

SH

EP

aci

fic

Isla

nd

er

Bla

ck/A

fric

an

A

me

rica

nW

hit

eU

nkn

ow

nC

ou

nty

Ind

ian

or

Ala

ska

n N

ati

veH

isp

an

ic O

rig

inA

sia

nN

on

Re

sid

en

t A

lie

n


Table 64 2010-2011 Full Cost Study Summary (Appropriated Funds Only)

Direct Full FTE Student/ Direct Cost Full CostCost of Cost of Students Faculty of Instruction of Instruction

Institution Founded Instruction Instruction 2011 Ratio per FTE per FTE

University of Utah1 1850 $194,493,358 $324,861,838 27,347 16.4 $7,112 $11,879Utah State University 1888 117,356,867 193,969,981 20,480 22.8 $5,730 $9,471Weber State University 1889 54,011,163 105,084,113 14,486 17.6 $3,729 $7,254Southern Utah University 1897 23,819,490 55,226,153 6,579 19.4 $3,620 $8,394Snow College 1888 11,316,122 24,234,153 3,162 19.4 $3,578 $7,663Dixie State College 1911 15,940,361 33,558,890 6,404 19.1 $2,489 $5,240

Utah State University - Eastern2 1937 na na na na na naUtah Valley University 1941 71,517,786 140,045,059 20,849 19.8 $3,430 $6,717Salt Lake Community College 1947 53,932,919 106,743,295 19,179 21.5 $2,812 $5,566

Total 542,388,066 983,723,482 118,486 19.2 $4,578 $8,302

FTE = Full-Time Equivalent

Note: Institutions are sorted by the type of institution and the year they were founded.1 Does not include the School of Medicine2 Data is part of Utah State University Cost-StudySource: Utah System of Higher Education

Table 63 Degrees and Awards by Race/Ethnicity at Public Institutions in Utah: Academic Year 2010-2011

Total Degrees Awarded

White, Non-

Hispanic

Black, Non-

Hispanic

American Indian or Alaskan

Native AsianPacific

Islander Hispanic Multiple

Non-resident

Alien

Race/ Ethnicity Unknown

University of Utah 7,483 5,882 65 47 311 22 333 45 411 367Utah State University 4,736 3,686 38 21 60 13 130 14 275 499Weber State University 4,145 2,979 38 28 97 6 4 6 18 969Southern Utah University 1,778 1,600 19 20 14 20 45 0 15 45Snow College 1,041 949 4 12 2 12 26 8 20 8Dixie State College 2,019 1,786 19 20 21 17 91 8 5 52Utah State University - Eastern 406 313 8 39 19 2 9 0 0 16Utah Valley State College 4,188 3,724 20 47 46 33 174 0 71 73Salt Lake Community College 4,180 3,268 75 47 137 52 287 0 49 265

Total Public 29,976 24,187 286 281 707 177 1,099 81 864 2,294

Percent of Total 80.7% 1.0% 0.9% 2.4% 0.6% 3.7% 0.3% 2.9% 7.7%

Notes: 1. Does not include UCAT Data.2. Institutions are sorted by the type of institution and the year they were founded.

Source: IPEDS Completions Surveys


Tabl

e 65

U

SHE

Sum

mar

y of

Tui

tion

and

Fees

by

Inst

itutio

n

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

2010

-11

2011

-12

2012

-13

Uni

vers

ity o

f Uta

hR

esid

ent

$2,8

95$3

,043

$3,3

25$3

,646

$4,0

00$4

,298

$4,6

63$4

,987

$5,2

87$5

,746

$6,2

74$6

,763

$7,1

39N

onre

side

nt8,

828

9,29

910

,182

11,2

9212

,410

13,3

7014

,593

15,6

6216

,600

18,1

3619

,841

21,3

8822

,642

Uta

h S

tate

Uni

vers

ityR

esid

ent

2,40

12,

590

2,83

43,

071

3,24

73,

615

3,94

94,

199

4,27

44,

828

5,15

05,

563

5,93

1N

onre

side

nt7,

279

7,89

78,

199

8,94

69,

533

10,4

3111

,449

12,2

2412

,725

13,8

0214

,797

16,0

7817

,077

Web

er S

tate

Uni

vers

ityR

esid

ent

2,10

62,

252

2,42

72,

632

2,87

63,

165

3,43

23,

664

3,85

44,

088

4,31

14,

547

4,76

1N

onre

side

nt6,

283

6,71

87,

295

7,95

88,

736

9,59

910

,415

11,1

3511

,161

11,5

5511

,901

12,2

5812

,858

Sou

ther

n U

tah

Uni

vers

ityR

esid

ent

2,06

72,

194

2,35

02,

794

3,05

43,

358

3,56

53,

796

4,02

84,

269

4,73

65,

198

5,57

6N

onre

side

nt6,

543

6,77

67,

344

8,15

89,

008

9,87

710

,603

11,3

2712

,082

12,8

4714

,386

15,9

1016

,984

Sno

w C

olle

geR

esid

ent

1,35

41,

414

1,52

31,

670

1,79

41,

996

2,16

42,

262

2,34

82,

542

2,74

62,

910

3,08

6N

onre

side

nt5,

601

5,88

45,

742

6,37

26,

556

7,21

07,

498

7,88

98,

228

8,23

88,

984

9,58

610

,230

Dix

ie S

tate

Col

lege

Res

iden

t1,

481

1,54

41,

612

1,77

81,

886

1,98

42,

492

2,72

82,

893

3,14

53,

489

3,88

84,

089

Non

resi

dent

5,48

35,

764

6,03

86,

554

7,03

47,

390

9,05

69,

447

10,0

6310

,897

12,1

1713

,536

11,7

21U

tah

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

- E

aste

rnR

esid

ent

1,47

61,

529

1,63

01,

740

1,86

11,

980

2,09

12,

161

2,24

22,

470

2,67

02,

922

3,07

0N

onre

side

nt5,

097

5,35

35,

762

6,22

86,

666

7,12

07,

670

7,96

44,

142

4,54

04,

940

5,39

45,

691

Uta

h V

alle

y U

nive

rsity

Res

iden

t1,

682

1,88

22,

196

2,45

02,

788

3,02

23,

308

3,52

83,

752

4,04

84,

288

4,58

44,

786

Non

resi

dent

5,26

25,

922

6,80

27,

630

8,71

89,

472

10,3

3811

,029

11,5

1411

,888

12,2

4612

,940

13,5

18S

alt

Lake

Com

mun

ity C

olle

geR

esid

ent

1,63

61,

762

1,89

02,

035

2,17

42,

312

2,40

42,

536

2,66

02,

790

2,93

23,

052

3,17

0N

onre

side

nt5,

131

5,45

05,

800

6,27

76,

754

7,23

27,

519

7,95

88,

374

8,73

09,

172

9,60

410

,012

Not

es:

1.

Tuiti

on is

equ

al t

o tw

o se

mes

ters

at

15 c

redi

t ho

urs

each

.2.

Lo

wer

div

isio

n (fr

eshm

an &

sop

hom

ore)

rat

e on

ly.

Hig

her

diffe

rent

ial r

ate

for

uppe

r di

visi

on (

juni

or a

nd s

enio

r) fo

r U

nive

rsity

of U

tah.

3.

Rat

e fo

r un

derg

radu

ate

retu

rnin

g st

uden

ts.

Hig

her

diffe

rent

ial r

ate

for

new

stu

dent

s, in

tern

atio

nal s

tude

nts

and

stud

ents

enr

ollin

g in

Bus

ines

s

and

Eng

inee

ring

cour

ses

for

Uta

h S

tate

Uni

vers

ity.

4. In

stitu

tions

are

sor

ted

by t

he t

ype

of in

stitu

tion

and

the

year

the

y w

ere

foun

ded.

Sou

rce:

Uta

h S

yste

m o

f Hig

her

Edu

catio

n


Table 66 Five Year History of Degrees by Public Institutions in Utah

Change % ChangeDegrees and Awards 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11

Total University of Utah 7,186 7,518 7,447 7,111 7,483 372 5.2%Utah State University 3,942 4,699 4,260 4,459 4,736 277 6.2%Weber State University 3,792 3,797 3,958 4,125 4,145 20 0.5%Southern Utah University 1,250 1,356 1,541 1,609 1,778 169 10.5%Snow College 742 659 643 720 1,041 321 44.6%Dixie State College 1,317 1,471 1,616 2,087 2,019 -68 -3.3%Utah State University - Eastern 418 369 382 383 406 23 6.0%Utah Valley University 3,287 3,269 3,441 3,739 4,188 449 12.0%Salt Lake Community College 3,481 3,647 3,693 4,175 4,180 5 0.1%Total Public 25,415 26,785 26,981 28,408 29,976 1,568 5.5%

Certificates & Awards*University of Utah 294 358 303 292 302 10 3.4%Utah State University 4 8 15 10 20 10 100.0%Weber State University 51 44 41 64 57 -7 -10.9%Southern Utah University 10 5 11 13 20 7 53.8%Snow College 66 43 54 67 293 226 337.3%Dixie State College 319 580 625 875 557 -318 -36.3%Utah State University - Eastern 45 57 59 53 51 -2 -3.8%Utah Valley University 27 27 18 59 85 26 44.1%Salt Lake Community College 789 745 692 791 767 -24 -3.0%Total Certificates & Awards 1,605 1,867 1,818 2,224 2,152 -72 -3.2%

Associate'sUtah State University 262 737 493 485 505 20 4.1%Weber State University 1,630 1,677 1,851 1,850 1,798 -52 -2.8%Southern Utah University 168 209 323 317 359 42 13.2%Snow College 676 616 589 653 748 95 14.5%Dixie State College 864 741 778 894 1,080 186 20.8%Utah State University - Eastern 373 312 323 330 355 25 7.6%Utah Valley University 1,781 1,716 1,651 1,689 1,809 120 7.1%Salt Lake Community College 2,692 2,902 3,001 3,384 3,413 29 0.9%Total Associate's 8,446 8,910 9,009 9,602 10,067 465 4.8%

BaccalaureateUniversity of Utah 4,829 4,882 4,896 4,622 4,801 179 3.9%Utah State University 2,853 3,005 2,968 3,040 3,232 192 6.3%Weber State University 1,940 1,881 1,872 1,980 2,029 49 2.5%Southern Utah University 868 880 900 927 979 52 5.6%Dixie State College 134 150 213 318 382 64 20.1%Utah Valley University 1,479 1,526 1,772 1,980 2,276 296 14.9%Total Baccalaureate 12,103 12,324 12,621 12,867 13,699 832 6.5%

Master'sUniversity of Utah 1,441 1,611 1,563 1,565 1,657 92 5.9%Utah State University 738 852 696 831 862 31 3.7%Weber State University 171 195 194 231 261 30 13.0%Southern Utah University 204 262 307 352 420 68 19.3%Utah Valley University na na na 11 18 7 63.6%Total Master's 2,554 2,920 2,760 2,990 3,218 228 7.6%

DoctorateUniversity of Utah 345 397 313 279 304 25 9.0%Utah State University 85 97 88 88 111 23 26.1%Total Doctorate 430 494 401 367 415 48 13.1%

First ProfessionalUniversity of Utah 277 270 372 353 419 66 18.7%Utah State University na na na 5 6 1 20.0%Total First Professional 277 270 372 358 425 67 18.7%

*Includes Post-Baccalaureate and Post-Master's Certificates for the University of Utah and Utah State UniversityNote: Institutions are sorted by the type of institution and the year they were founded.

Source: IPEDS Completions Surveys - Does not include UCAT Data


Table 67 Public Institutions in Utah Total Degrees and Awards by Instructional Program1 2010-2011

Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) U of U USU WSU SUU SNOW DSCUSU-

Eastern UVU SLCCUSHE

Total

Agriculture & Natural Resources 61 197 0 16 6 0 0 0 1 281Architecture & Related Studies 80 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111Area, Ethnic & Cultural Studies 51 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 95Biological Sciences/Life Sciences 183 111 51 64 10 19 0 75 10 523Business & Marketing 1,021 734 542 253 68 172 20 643 331 3,784Communications 432 104 63 70 20 47 0 98 38 872Computer & Info Sciences 135 129 123 13 6 42 1 178 72 699Education 253 653 286 491 69 54 0 338 29 2,173Engineering & Related Technologies 583 366 122 42 23 2 8 97 129 1,372English Language & Literature 171 145 80 23 14 18 0 67 23 541Family and Consumer Sciences 258 205 48 39 9 0 0 0 0 559Foreign Languages 163 35 30 12 2 0 0 39 13 294Health Professions 920 272 1,193 76 386 689 79 249 902 4,766History 107 68 31 14 6 0 0 40 21 287Law & Legal Studies 151 10 0 1 2 0 0 42 36 242Liberal Arts & Sciences/Gen. Studies 71 503 1,069 340 267 861 267 985 1,812 6,175Mathematics 109 41 4 3 6 0 0 14 6 183

Other (2) 472 153 4 47 7 51 0 149 12 895

Other Vocational Studies (3) 0 27 220 64 35 41 30 627 467 1,511Philosophy 35 16 5 0 0 0 0 15 0 71Physical Sciences & Science Tech. 193 59 22 6 3 0 0 20 45 348Psychology 337 141 55 67 27 14 0 344 73 1,058Social Sciences & Public Admin. 1,347 552 136 73 17 0 0 44 109 2,278Visual & Performing Arts 350 141 61 64 58 9 0 124 51 858

Total degrees and awards completed 7,483 4,736 4,145 1,778 1,041 2,019 406 4,188 4,180 29,976

Notes:1. Source: IPEDS Completions Surveys - Academic Year 2010-20112. Includes Library Science, Military Technologies, Multi/Interdisciplinary Studies, and Parks & Recreation.3. Includes Personal Services, Vocational Home Economics, Protective Services, Construction Trades, Mechanics & Repairers, Precision Production Trades, Transportation & Materials Moving.


Table 68 USHE Fall Semester Student and FTE Growth: 2010 - 2011

USHE Institution 2010 2011 % Change 2010 2011 % Change

University of Utah 30,833 31,673 2.7% 25,654 26,227 2.2%Utah State University* 28,401 28,994 2.1% 19,068 19,542 2.5%Weber State University 24,126 25,483 5.6% 13,700 13,821 0.9%Southern Utah University 8,024 7,750 -3.4% 6,241 6,008 -3.7%Snow College 4,386 4,465 1.8% 3,161 3,244 2.6%Dixie State College 8,755 9,086 3.8% 6,118 6,395 4.5%Utah Valley University 32,670 33,395 2.2% 19,010 19,705 3.7%Salt Lake Community College 33,983 33,167 -2.4% 16,567 15,856 -4.3%

Total 171,178 174,013 1.7% 109,519 110,798 1.2%

Note: Institutions are sorted by the type of institution and the year they were founded.Full-time Equivalent Students are based on Budget-related enrollments only (rounded)* Includes USU - Eastern Source: Utah System of Higher Education

Total Headcount Full-Time Equivalent Students

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 139 Economic Development UT

Governor’s Office of Economic Development The Economic Development Tax Increment Financing (EDTIF) Tax Incentive is a post-performance tax credit based on sales, corporate and withholding tax paid to the state and is available to companies seeking relocation to and expansion of existing operations in Utah. In FY 2012, the GOED Board extended 18 EDTIF incentive offers, includ-ing E-bay, Hexcel Corp and Home Depot. The incentive payments will range from five to 20 years. The developments are expected to bring 9,065 new jobs, $6 billion in new wages and $426 million in new state revenue. Office of Energy Development Alternative Energy Development Incentive (AEDI) was cre-ated in the 2012 General Session as a means of facilitating the large-scale development (>2MW or 1,000 bpd) of alternative energy resources, the AEDI is a post-performance tax credit equivalent to 75% of all new sales, corporate, and withhold-ing tax paid to the state. The AEDI, which lasts for a period of 20 years, will offer critical certainty to those companies focused on developing Utah's largely untapped renewable and unconventional resources. The AEDI is housed with the newly created Office of Energy Development (OED), which has just completed and other administrative tasks necessary to making the new tax credit operational. OED will be accept-ing applications starting in the fall of 2012. Technology Commercialization & Innovation Program The Technology Commercialization & Innovation Program (TCIP), formerly the Centers of Excellence Program, sup-ports the acceleration and commercialization of promising technologies. Over the past 24 years, the program evolved from offering grants only to universities, to now awarding grants to universities and companies who license technology from a university. The end goal of TCIP is to help drive eco-nomic development and job creation in Utah. The program recently adopted a new business model, which is able to provide smaller, more frequent funding to a wider range of technology commercialization projects at critical funding points. The application process is competitive, with multiple (up to three) selection cycles per year. Grants of up to $40,000 are awarded on a first application and up to an additional $40,000 in a second round, for a maximum of

$80,000 per applicant for a single technology. TCIP offered two rounds for grant award opportunities in FY2011. Round 1: TCIP received 45 applications, for a total funding request of over $1.7 million. Of these, 21 were awarded a TCIP grant—12 licensee companies, five affiliate companies, two University of Utah professor teams, and two Utah State University professor teams. Most of the technologies fell within the cluster category of Manufacturing, Materials, Ener-gy and Environmental technologies, with Life Science next and IT following. The funding total in Round 1 was approxi-mately $900,000. Over 50% of the Round 1 grant funds have been paid out to the grant awardees. The remaining grant awardees are in the process of acquiring matching funds which must be obtained prior to grant disbursement. Round 2: TCIP received 42 applications for a total funding request of just under $1.7 million. Of these, 22 were awarded a TCIP grant, of which two were second-time applicants—14 licensee companies, five affiliate companies, two University of Utah professor teams and one Utah State University pro-fessor team. Most of the technologies fell within the cluster categories of Life Science and IT, with Manufacturing, Mate-rials, Energy and Environmental technologies following. The funding total in Round 2 was approximately $900,000. Contracting is still in process. With 87 grant applications totaling over $3 million in funding requests, a budget of $2.5 million and 43 grants awarded this year, TCIP is clearly filling a need in an area where little to no funding sources exist for companies who are in the very early stages of technology development and are not yet attractive to investors. Utah Science, Technology, and Research Initiative In March 2006, the Utah State Legislature passed Senate Bill 75, creating the Utah Science, Technology, and Research initi-ative (USTAR). This measure provided funding for strategic investments at the University of Utah (U of U) and Utah State University (USU) to recruit world-class researchers, build state-of-the-art interdisciplinary research and develop-ment facilities, and form world-class science, innovation, and commercialization teams across the state. This initiative fo-cuses on leveraging the proven success of Utah’s research universities in creating and commercializing innovative tech-nologies to generate more technology-based start-up firms, higher paying jobs, and additional business activity leading to an expansion of the tax base. In a little more than four years of operation, USTAR is on or ahead of plan in its three program areas–Research Teams, Building Projects, and regional Technology Outreach. As of June 30, 2011 there were an estimated 177 full-time equiva-lent (FTE) research jobs statewide directly related to USTAR research. The building projects employed more than an esti-mated 800 workers.

Economic Development

Despite the recession, Utah maintained a smart, strong and vital economic development program. The Utah Science, Technology, and Research initiative continued to recruit re-search faculty. Construction of the major research facilities at Utah State University and the University of Utah were com-pleted. Commercial applications of the research develop-ments promise jobs and revenue for Utah’s economy. The Governor’s Office of Economic Development continued to attract companies to relocate to Utah and assist Utah compa-nies in expanding operations in the state.


The USTAR initiative is a long-term, multi-year effort. The initial phase focused on hiring significant researchers, build-ing research facilities, and putting in place an experienced team of technological outreach leadership throughout the state. USTAR has already experienced a significant increase in federal grants attracted to the state, as well as a steady in-crease in the number of disclosures and patents filed. In FY2011, USTAR has hired 18 more senior faculty mem-bers. With an additional state investment in USTAR research of $21.5 million, the state has received $28.5 million in exter-nal research grant awards. Overall, the state has invested $73.5 million and received $77.5 million. Also, USTAR re-searchers have added 42 patents in FY2011, an increase of 45% over the 29 patents filed in FY2010. Based on jobs created through extramural research funding, USTAR has created an estimated 1,984 jobs, slightly ahead of projections (106%). USTAR building projects are progress-ing within budget. Ribbon cutting at USU’s BioInnovations Building took place October 7, 2010. The U of U building opened in December 2011. The USTAR regional Technology Outreach staff conducted projects that supported companies, entrepreneurs, and re-searchers in 19 of the 29 counties in the state. This has in-cluded the Technology Commercialization Grant program, which strives to encourage collaboration between local indus-try and regional and research universities. Some 68 projects were funded by September 2010, and progress in terms of prototype creation and private equity financing has been en-couraging. Both research buildings are projected to attract new levels of industry-sponsored research funding. In addition, USTAR anticipates the creation of two to four new companies from the Technology Commercialization Grant program, as well as two to four new companies from the ranks of USTAR-recruited researchers. Current research efforts supported by USTAR Biofuels. USTAR researchers and USU are leading the effort to develop a pilot facility for extracting harmful phosphates from the Logan city waste lagoon. The facility will harvest algae that consume nitrogen and phosphates and convert them into biofuel. Transportation, Energy, and Public Health. The Center for Active Sensing and Imaging at USU is developing laser technology called LIDAR which bounces laser light off ob-jects to accurately measure the size, shape, and location of land, buildings, and even air. “Mapping the wind” can help to detect air pollution and site wind farms. This 3D imaging will speed the building of freeway bridges. Other teams are developing intelligent, self-adapting lights to save energy in commercial buildings.

Nutrition. USU and USTAR-supported research are leading a study to determine whether prevention of cholesterol ab-sorption is more effective when certain plant substances (phytosterols) are used in combination with drug therapy. Modernized Training. New teams are beginning work on designing simulations for training security, firefighting, medi-cal, and other emergency response teams as well as veterinary diagnostic tests. Carbon Fuels. U of U has a preeminent research project in geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. In February 2011, U of U and Headwaters Incorporated entered into a joint venture to offer carbon management services to CO2 emit-ting companies. Cancer, heart disease, and other conditions. A company formed by U of U researchers is exploring an array of precise-ly directed cancer-fighting drugs. The compounds are able to minimize damage to healthy cells by only entering cancerous ones to deliver cell-killing agents. Also, research by scientists in the Brain Institute and the Department of Pediatrics is pointing the way to new treatments of cancer, congenital heart disease, and other conditions. Nanotechnology. Researchers are developing new tools to improve testing and detection with nano-devices. Nanotech-nology has an impact in many scientific areas, from medical to energy. 3D Seismic Special Decomposition Analysis may increase efficiency of oil and gas drilling, reducing costs and environmental damage. Advances in brain imaging will lead to earlier detection and more effective treatment of a variety of mental illnesses. New research and clinical efforts will help reduce suicide rates improving quality of life for military vet-erans. Economic Development Corporation of Utah Started in 1987 as a private, nonprofit organization, Econom-ic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCUtah) is a public/private partnership, working with state and local governments and private industry to attract and grow competitive, high-value companies and spur the development of local Utah businesses. During FY2011, EDCUtah assisted 20 companies that subsequently announced their intention to expand or relocate in Utah. EDCUtah Impact for FY2011: 20 compa-nies relocated, expanded, or retained; 7,263 new jobs commit-ted; 1,346 jobs retained; 3,150,072 square feet of real estate absorbed; and $796 million of new capital investment in Utah. Retained refers to companies or jobs that would have left the state were it not for the efforts of EDCUtah. Downtown Rising 222 Main. This is the first Silver LEED Certified Class A office building in the Salt Lake Valley. It opened in 2009 and tenants are continuing to occupy the office space which is now approximately 75% leased. Tenants include the law firms Holland and Hart, and Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione,


real estate company CB Richard Ellis, and the single largest tenant is the investment bank Goldman Sachs (which occu-pies seven floors). The project totaled $125 million before tenant improvements. City Creek Center. The City Creek Center development leads the way in making downtown Salt Lake City the regional center for culture, commerce, and entertainment. The newly remodeled lobby of the Key Bank Tower is complete and the new food court is open and serving customers. The mixed use development opened March 2012. While City Creek and 222 Main are the largest, many other projects are in planning stages, currently under construction, or recently completed. Approximately $1.6 million dollars is being invested daily in Salt Lake City’s Central Business Dis-trict. Other Projects Gallivan Center. The Gallivan Center is owned by the Rede-velopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City Public Services has partnered with the RDA to provide the management, programming and maintenance. The plaza was renovated over the last 18 months adding to the public meet-ing spaces available in the downtown area. Federal Courthouse. The historic Odd Fellows hall was successfully relocated to the north side of Market Street, which has cleared the site for construction of the Moss Fed-eral Courthouse. Construction began in 2010. UTA Airport TRAX Extension. The highly anticipated TRAX extension to the Salt Lake International Airport is under construction. This project will include the construction of a shortened North Temple viaduct, enhancing transporta-tion between downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. Salt Lake City Public Safety Complex. A voter-approved $125 million bond was passed in the November 2009 elec-tion. The new Public Safety Complex will replace the current 50-year-old headquarters located at 315 E. 200 South and the project is expected to be completed by 2012. Gateway Office 6. Proposed Class-A office space is current-ly being developed by the Boyer Company as part of the Gateway master plan. The National Security Administration Facility (NSA). The NSA facility is a $1.9 billion data center at Camp Williams, Utah, to help with surveillance on communi-cations worldwide. The facility will sit on 120 acres at Camp Williams. The center's mission will be to deliver "responsive, reliable, effective and expert signals-intelligence and infor-mation-assurance products and services" to enable "network-warfare operations to gain a decisive information advantage for the nation and our allies under all circumstances."

President Obama signed into law a supplemental war-spending bill that includes the first $169.5 million for con-struction at the center (after another $207.4 million had been spent on planning it). The first pool of money will go to pro-vide utilities to the site and relocate some existing National Guard facilities away from the area. The money will also be used to install initial security items, including perimeter fenc-ing and alarms, an interim visitor control center and a vehicle-inspection center for use during construction. A first-phase, 30-megawatt data center to include "state-of-the-art high-performance computing devices and associated hardware architecture” is currently under. In addition to the vitality the facility will bring to the local economy, it adds to the high tech cluster that is congregating near point of the mountain, including Microsoft, Adobe, Intel Micron Flash, EMC2, and Ebay among others. Falcon Hill. Falcon Hill is a cooperative effort between the U.S. Air Force, the State of Utah, and several local govern-ments. The United States Air Force, acting under the author-ity of Title 10, United States Code, and Section 2667 as amended, has launched an Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) pro-ject at Hill Air Force Base (HAFB) known as Falcon Hill National Aerospace Research Park (Falcon Hill). The Mili-tary Installation Development Authority was formed by the Utah State Legislature as a development authority to facilitate EUL projects on military lands in Utah. Significant Issues Continuing to recruit and incentivize businesses to the state is crucial to the future. These programs are anticipated to cre-ate more than an estimated 15,000 jobs in the next ten years. These efforts will provide stability through Utah’s re-covery and will to place Utah at the front of the nation in development. Conclusion These various programs have brought Utah into the spotlight for economic development. Utah was named the number one state for businesses by Fortune magazine, and Salt Lake City was named a top 15 city worldwide for future busi-ness. From recruiting Adobe to making world-class develop-ments and breakthroughs in nano-technology, Utah’s eco-nomic development efforts by the government are an active force in shaping the future of the state.

Industry Focus

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 145 Agriculture UT

2011 and FY 2012 Summary Sales. Only 16 years ago, hog sales were an insignificant part of Utah agriculture, accounting for less than 1% of total agri-culture sales. This changed with hog farms in Beaver County, which boomed in 1996. Though the growth rate of hog sales isn’t as dramatic now, hog sales have continued to grow steadily since then and currently account for 34% of all meat livestock sales in Utah. In 2011, Utah had $210 million in hog sales, which is a 14.6% increase over 2010 sales. The cattle industry had nearly a 30% drop in sales in 2006 and continued to drop until 2009. Because the cattle industry continues to be the largest sector in Utah agriculture, this caused a noticeable drop in farmer earnings and profits. However, last year cattle sales grew 31.4% to $312 million. Hay sales in 2011 had an enormous increase. This is largely due to a 62.7% increase in the average hay price from 2010 to 2011. Total hay sales increased 93.6% to $510 million. Prices. Both hay and dairy prices experienced significant price increases in 2007 and 2008, but fell in the latter part of 2009. During 2010 and the beginning of 2011, there was a dramatic increase in the price of all four commodities. As previously mentioned, hay prices in 2011 and into 2012 have been dramatically higher than in 2010. These prices may have

helped farmer earnings, but they also translate into higher prices for consumers and greater costs for ranchers. Significant Issues Over the last 19 years, farmers have received less of each dollar spent on food products. For example, in 1993, for eve-ry dollar spent on food, farmers received about 19.0%. Ac-cording to the most recent estimates, in 2010, farmers re-ceived only 13.5% of each dollar spent on food. The fastest growing portion of food costs is in foodservices, which is largely composed of food distribution. This suggests that although commodity prices have been increasing, recent in-creases in food prices are a result of increasing distribution costs, particularly as gas prices rise. This trend does not nec-essarily suggest that farmer profits are decreasing, only that the food price increases in the last decade are not a result of increased food commodity prices, but rather a result of in-creased gas prices. Conclusion The agricultural sector was able to maintain its strong footing in cattle, dairy, hogs, and hay even through the recession. The cattle industry experienced the greatest decrease in sales but has since bounced back to 2005 levels and looks to be climbing. Food price increases in the last decade reflect an increase in food distribution costs rather than farming and ranching costs.

Agriculture

In 2011, Utah had an estimated 11.1 million acres in farm-land, or 4.8% of Utah’s area. There are 16,600 farms with an average size of 669 acres. It is estimated that there was a stock of 800,000 cattle and calves by January 2012, 760,000 hogs and pigs by December 2011, and 305,000 sheep by Jan-uary 2012. Utah milk cows produced 1,854,000,000 pounds of milk in 2011, which is 0.9% of total U.S. milk production. The most recent data shows that crop and animal production was $491 million in 2010, which is up 61% over the $305 million in 2009. Agriculture production accounts for 0.4% of state GDP in 2010. Total sales in agriculture were $1.59 billion in fiscal year 2012, which is up 13.6% from fiscal year 2011. Livestock sales were up 9.9% to $1.06 billion while crop sales were up 21.8% to $531 million. Livestock sales accounted for 68.4% of agri-culture sales, while crop sales made up 31.6%. Although grocery prices are rising, this is not necessarily translating into greater profits for farmers and ranchers. Cur-rently, it is estimated that only 13.5% of each dollar spent by consumers on food goes towards farmers and ranchers. This is low compared to the last decade, suggesting the recent in-creases in grocery prices are not due to greater farmer profits, but rather a result of increased costs in food services and processing.

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 146 Agriculture UT

Figure 57 Price Received in Major Agriculture Sectors: Indexed to 1990-1992 Prices

Figure 58 Farmer Share of Food Spending

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

0

40

80

120

160

200

240Ja

n-0

0

Jun

-00

No

v-00

Ap

r-0

1

Sep

-01

Feb

-02

Jul-

02

Dec

-02

May

-03

Oct

-03

Mar

-04

Au

g-0

4

Jan

-05

Jun

-05

No

v-05

Ap

r-0

6

Sep

-06

Feb

-07

Jul-

07

Dec

-07

May

-08

Oct

-08

Mar

-09

Au

g-0

9

Jan

-10

Jun

-10

No

v-10

Ap

r-1

1

Sep

-11

Feb

-12

Jul-

12

Pri

ce

Ind

ex

Dairy Animal Products Hay

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 147 Construction UT

Residential Construction In 2011, residential construction totaled 8,784 units, 6% be-low 2010. This marked the sixth consecutive year of decline in residential units. The previous longest residential contrac-tion was the five year contraction of 1978-1982. In the recent contraction, residential construction declined 69% for all types of residential units (apartment, condominiums and sin-gle-family homes). The decline was more severe for single-family homes, which dropped from 20,912 in 2005 to 5,385 units in 2011, a decline of 74%. 2011 Summary. The home building sector could not get any traction in 2011 despite mortgage rates averaging a very low 4.45%. Housing demand did not respond to the low interest rates for a number of reasons: (1) uncertainty about jobs, income and housing prices, (2) inability of buyers to qualify for mortgage loans, (3) a high percentage of homes with neg-ative equity prevented home owners from moving-up, (4) doubling-up of households (5) declining net in-migration and (6) competition from low priced foreclosed and short sale homes. These factors all hurt the demand for new residential construction. The residential sector is divided into two broad categories: single-family and multifamily construction. In 2011, the sin-gle-family sector captured 61% new residential construction activity, a slight decline from the 64% share in 2010. The number of apartment units built exceeded condominiums for the fourth year in a row. New apartment construction was driven by improved market conditions—declining vacancy rates and increasing rental rates—generated by rising demand for rental units. The increase in demand is due in part to the inability of many households to qualify for home ownership. The current rental vacancy rate in Salt Lake County is 3.8% and rental rates have increased by 8% in the past year. A new Class A three bedroom two bathroom unit now rents for about $1,100 in Salt Lake County, equivalent to the mortgage payment for the median priced home in Salt Lake County.

Housing prices in Utah fell for four years. From the price peak in the third quarter of 2007, housing prices in Utah fell 25% according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Housing Price Index. Housing prices in Utah likely hit bot-tom in the first quarter of 2012 and in year-over comparisons have increased between 3% and 7% by third quarter of 2012. Residential Construction Conclusion Utah’s residential building contraction (2006-2011) lasted for six years making it the longest contraction in the past sixty years. While building activity declined for six years, housing prices declined 25% over four years. Prior to this recession, very few Utah homeowners had experienced falling prices. From 1967 to 2007, housing prices in Salt Lake County de-clined in only one year. Like the nation, Utah’s home build-ing industry was at 50-60 year lows in 2011, but housing mar-ket indicators point to the beginning of a recovery in 2012. New residential construction is up 12% through August 2012, home prices are rising and rental market conditions are strong. Nonresidential Construction During 2011 and the first half of 2012, Utah’s economic re-covery spurred increased levels of commercial construction. New construction across all property types was notable. Sev-eral large office projects were completed in the Salt Lake val-ley, but the area around Thanksgiving Point in Lehi is becom-ing a focal point for new office construction. In the industri-al sector, new construction will add several million square feet to the market by the end of 2012, with leasing demand strong enough to absorb much of the new space and maintain low availability rates in the Salt Lake market. In addition, several large retail projects commenced or were completed with the most prominent being City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City. 2011 Summary. As conditions improved in Utah’s labor market and vacancy fell in select submarkets, construction on new office buildings commenced. Although the only multi-tenant office building over 30,000 square feet to reach com-pletion during 2011 was at Thanksgiving Point, several other buildings commenced construction. Also worth noting is that a substantial amount of construc-tion for public sector use commenced in 2011, including the new 409,397 square foot federal courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City and the FBI’s new 160,000 square foot field office near the airport. In addition, work on the National Security Agency’s (NSA) $1.5 billion data center began and the Department of Homeland Security finished construction on its 69,179 square foot office in West Valley. In the industrial property sector, 925,910 square feet of new construction was completed in the Salt Lake market during 2011. The largest property, Landmark 8 at 507,000 square

Construction

The value of permit authorized construction in Utah in 2011 was $3.75 billion, 16% higher than the $3.24 billion in 2010. In 2011, all three major construction sectors improved; the value of residential construction increased by 3%, nonresi-dential construction by 30%, and additions, alterations and repairs by 28%. Through August of 2012, the value of all permit authorized construction (residential, nonresidential and additions) in Utah was down 3% due to significant de-clines in nonresidential construction and additions, alterations and repairs. However, value of residential construction through August 2012 has increased by 15% due to improve-ment in the home building sector. The number of permits for single family homes is up 35% statewide and up 59% in Salt Lake County.


feet was nearly 90% preleased before completion. Although Salt Lake’s industrial market experienced a large amount of new construction, healthy demand helped keep the area’s availability rate near or below 9%, a rate considered one of the lowest in the country. In 2011, the most notable retail projects reaching completion included the first phase of retail at Station Park in Farming-ton, expansion of Fashion Place Mall and on-going renova-tions and expansion of Valley Fair Mall. The expansion of retail is highly dependent on the health of the broader econo-my. As job growth in Utah accelerated during 2011, retailers took notice and increased activity was observed. 2012 Summary. Several projects are at or nearing comple-tion in 2012. To the north, the 151,783 square foot Building 1575 at Falcon Hill opened in March of 2012. In the Salt Lake valley, it is estimated that an additional 693,940 square feet of multi-tenant space in new buildings over 30,000 square feet will be added to the office market by the end of 2012. The amount of office space constructed in the Salt Lake market represents a dramatic improvement from prior years coming out of the Great Recession. It is worth noting that the most concentrated construction of new office build-ings in the state is located around Thanksgiving Point in Lehi. The first building of Adobe’s new campus in Lehi is currently under construction, totaling 280,000 square feet. Additional-ly, several large multi-tenant projects are planned or currently under construction in the area. At the present time, 370,480 square feet of multi-tenant office space is under construction at two buildings in Thanksgiving Park and the first building in the Traverse Ridge project. Currently, it is estimated that almost 2.4 million square feet of Industrial space will be completed in the Salt Lake market during 2012, including the 485,000 square foot Landmark 7 building at Freeport West, which is 100% pre-leased. While a large amount of space is being added to the market, solid demand is allowing the market to maintain a healthy balance between supply and demand. During 2012, the most notable development in retail to reach completion was the 700,000 square feet City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City. The new mixed-use center brought over 30 new retailers to the state including high-profile names such as Tiffany & Co. and Brooks Brothers. In addition to City Creek, the expansion of Station Park in Farmington and Valley Fair Mall also continued in 2012 and a new Scheels Sports location in Sandy totaling 220,000 square feet opened. Nonresidential Construction Outlook Going forward, commercial construction is expected to slow moving into 2013. Uncertainty, causing continued sluggish-ness in the broader economic environment, combined with a significant amount of recent commercial construction will not

be conducive to acceleration in commercial construction ac-tivity during the next several quarters. In the office sector, much of the planned construction likely to move forward will be in low-vacancy areas in the southern end of the Salt Lake valley and northern Utah County. Office demand is primarily driven by employment growth. A re-strained economic environment will produce slow job growth; this combined with trends toward space efficiency will result in subdued office demand for the remainder of 2012 and into 2013. Consequently, a dramatic increase in office construction should not be expected with completed construction in 2013 somewhat lower than 2012. After experiencing a rapid increase in construction, Utah’s industrial sector is also set to see a slowing in new construc-tion. Total square footage of completed construction in the sector from 2011 through 2012 will total just over 3.3 million square feet. Although demand for newly constructed space has been healthy, completions in 2013 will likely end up lower than 2012; however, several planned projects are ready to move forward depending on market conditions. Retail construction is also slowing, with continuing construc-tion at Station Park, Valley Fair Mall and new outlets in Lehi as the most prominent on-going projects in the state. The new outlets in Lehi will bring an additional 225,000 square feet of retail space to the market in 2012 alone, with another 104,000 square feet underway soon in a second phase. After an impressive amount of retail space constructed during the last 24 months, including City Creek Center, Station Park, Fashion Place, and Valley Fair Mall expansions and Scheels Sports, current market conditions are not likely to warrant a similar volume of new construction going forward. Nonresidential Construction Conclusion A large amount of commercial construction has occurred in Utah since the beginning of 2011. Furthermore, new con-struction occurred in all of the major property types with some degree of geographic diversity. The most concentrated areas for commercial construction include Lehi where several office projects are on-going, Salt Lake’s industrial market and City Creek Center in downtown Salt Lake City. Going for-ward, new commercial construction is expected to slow somewhat as the market absorbs newly constructed space and growth in the broader economy remains subdued.


Figure 59 Utah Residential Construction Activity

Figure 60 Value of New Construction

Source: University of Utah, David Eccles School of Business, Bureau of Economic and Business Research f = forecast

Source: University of Utah, David Eccles School of Business, Bureau of Economic and Business Research f = forecast

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,0001

970

197

11

972

197

31

974

197

51

976

197

71

978

197

91

980

198

11

982

198

31

984

198

51

986

198

71

988

198

91

990

199

11

992

199

31

994

199

51

996

199

71

998

199

92

000

200

12

002

200

32

004

200

52

006

200

72

008

200

92

010

201

12

012

f

Single-Family Units Multi-Family Units Total

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

197

01

971

197

21

973

197

41

975

197

61

977

197

81

979

198

01

981

198

21

983

198

41

985

198

61

987

198

81

989

199

01

991

199

21

993

199

41

995

199

61

997

199

81

999

200

02

001

200

22

003

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

201

2f

Residential Nonresidential Renovations Total


Table 69 Residential and Nonresidential Construction Activity

Value of Value of Value ofSingle- Multi- Mobile Residential Nonresidential Add., Alt., TotalFamily Family Homes/ Total Construction Construction and Repairs Valuation

Year Units Units Cabins Units (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions)

1970 5,962 3,108 na 9,070 $117.0 $87.3 $18.0 $222.31971 6,768 6,009 na 12,777 176.8 121.6 23.9 322.31972 8,807 8,513 na 17,320 256.5 99.0 31.8 387.31973 7,546 5,904 na 13,450 240.9 150.3 36.3 427.51974 8,284 3,217 na 11,501 237.9 174.2 52.3 464.41975 10,912 2,800 na 13,712 330.6 196.5 50.0 577.11976 13,546 5,075 na 18,621 507.0 216.8 49.4 773.21977 17,424 5,856 na 23,280 728.0 327.1 61.7 1,116.81978 15,618 5,646 na 21,264 734.0 338.6 70.8 1,143.41979 12,570 4,179 na 16,749 645.8 490.3 96.0 1,232.11980 7,760 3,141 na 10,901 408.3 430.0 83.7 922.01981 5,413 3,840 na 9,253 451.5 378.2 101.6 931.31982 4,767 2,904 na 7,671 347.6 440.1 175.7 963.41983 8,806 5,858 na 14,664 657.8 321.0 136.3 1,115.11984 7,496 11,327 na 18,823 786.7 535.2 172.9 1,494.81985 7,403 7,844 na 15,247 706.2 567.7 167.6 1,441.51986 8,512 4,932 na 13,444 715.5 439.9 164.1 1,319.51987 6,530 755 na 7,305 495.2 413.4 166.4 1,075.01988 5,297 418 na 5,715 413.0 272.1 161.5 846.61989 5,197 453 na 5,632 447.8 389.6 171.1 1,008.51990 6,099 910 na 7,009 579.4 422.9 243.4 1,245.71991 7,911 958 572 9,441 791.0 342.6 186.9 1,320.51992 10,375 1,722 904 13,001 1,113.6 396.9 234.8 1,745.31993 12,929 3,865 1,010 17,804 1,504.4 463.7 337.3 2,305.41994 13,947 4,646 1,154 19,747 1,730.1 772.2 341.9 2,844.21995 13,904 6,425 1,229 21,558 1,854.6 832.7 409.0 3,096.31996 15,139 7,190 1,408 23,737 2,104.5 951.8 386.3 3,442.61997 14,079 5,265 1,343 20,687 1,943.5 1,370.9 407.1 3,721.61998 14,476 5,762 1,505 21,743 2,188.7 1,148.4 461.3 3,798.41999 14,561 4,443 1,346 20,350 2,238.0 1,195.0 537.0 3,971.02000 13,463 3,629 1,062 18,154 2,140.1 1,213.0 583.3 3,936.02001 13,851 5,089 735 19,675 2,352.7 970.0 562.8 3,885.42002 14,466 4,149 926 19,941 2,491.0 897.0 393.0 3,782.02003 16,515 5,555 766 22,836 3,046.4 1,017.4 497.0 4,560.82004 17,724 5,853 716 24,293 3,552.6 1,089.9 476.0 5,118.52005 20,912 6,562 811 28,285 4,662.6 1,217.8 707.6 6,588.02006 19,888 5,658 776 26,322 4,955.5 1,588.0 865.3 7,408.82007 13,510 6,290 739 20,539 3,963.2 2,051.0 979.7 6,994.42008 5,513 4,544 546 10,603 1,877.0 1,919.1 781.2 4,577.32009 5,217 4,951 320 10,488 1,674.0 1,056.1 660.1 3,390.12010 5,936 2,890 240 9,344 1,641.1 925.1 674.0 3,240.22011 5,385 3,225 174 8,784 1,691.3 1,198.2 859.8 3,749.4

Percent Change2010-2011 -9.3% 11.6% -27.5% -6.0% 3.1% 29.5% 27.6% 15.7%

Source: University of Utah, David Eccles School of Business, Bureau of Economic and Business Research


Table 70 Average Rates for 30-year Mortgages in Utah

Mortgage MortgageYear Rates Year Rates

1968 7.03% 1991 9.25%1969 7.82% 1992 8.40%1970 8.35% 1993 7.33%1971 7.55% 1994 8.36%1972 7.38% 1995 7.95%1973 8.04% 1996 7.81%1974 9.19% 1997 7.60%1975 9.04% 1998 6.95%1976 8.86% 1999 7.43%1977 8.84% 2000 8.06%1978 9.63% 2001 6.97%1979 11.19% 2002 6.54%1980 13.77% 2003 5.80%1981 16.63% 2004 5.84%1982 16.09% 2005 5.87%1983 13.23% 2006 6.40%1984 13.87% 2007 6.38%1985 12.42% 2008 6.10%1986 10.18% 2009 5.04%1987 10.19% 2010 4.69%1988 10.33% 2011 4.45%1989 10.32% 2012* 3.75%1990 10.13%

* Through September

Source: Freddie Mac


Table 71 Housing Prices for Utah

Year-Over Year-OverPercent Percent

Year Index Change Year Index Change

1992 110.1 8.0% 2003 206.3 2.6%1993 125.7 14.2% 2004 218.1 5.7%1994 146.3 16.3% 2005 243.0 11.4%1995 159.9 9.3% 2006 284.1 16.9%1996 172.5 7.9% 2007 319.0 12.3%1997 178.8 3.7% 2008 304.6 -4.5%1998 185.0 3.4% 2009 273.0 -10.4%1999 189.9 2.6% 2010 255.7 -6.3%2000 194.0 2.2% 2011 239.0 -6.5%2001 197.6 1.8% 2012* 251.3 5.6%2002 201.1 1.8%

Notes: 1. 1991 Q1 = 1002. Includes Purchases Only* Through 2nd Quarter

Sources: Federal Housing Finance Agency

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 153 Energy UT

2011 Summary Petroleum Production. Crude oil production in Utah has experienced a substantial resurgence over the past eight years due to new discoveries in central Utah and increased exploration and development in the Uinta Basin – the latter fueled by dra-matic increases in crude oil prices over the years. Crude oil production increased to 26.3 million barrels in 2011, up 6.5% from 2010, and up 100.5% from 2003. Total crude oil pipe-line imports have dropped significantly in the past few years from an average of 42.6 million barrels between 2000 and 2008 to 31.4 million barrels in 2011, making room at Utah refineries for the increase in Utah production. Of particular note, imports from Canada continue to decrease, from 4.3 million barrels in 2010 to 3.9 million barrels in 2011, signifi-cantly less than the record 12.2 million barrels delivered in 2002. Refinery receipts, the amount of crude oil delivered to Utah’s five refineries, increased in 2011 to a new record-high 55.9 million barrels of crude oil. This increase most likely signals a rise in demand related to an improving economy. Prices. Utah’s crude oil price increased to near-record levels in 2011, averaging $82.53 per barrel. Since the price of crude oil is directly tied to petroleum commodity prices, motor gas-oline and diesel experienced similar increases. The average 2011 price for regular unleaded motor gasoline in Utah in-creased 22% to $3.44 per gallon and the price of diesel rose 28% to $3.87, both new record-highs in nominal dollars. Higher prices and higher production helped the value of Utah’s produced crude oil to increase from $1.7 billion in 2010 to $2.2 billion in 2011, also a new record-high in nomi-nal dollars. Consumption. Utah’s refined petroleum production in-creased to 65.4 million barrels in 2011. Refined petroleum

product imports from Wyoming via the Pioneer pipeline de-creased 7.5% to 11.4 million barrels in 2011 and are 44% lower than peak imports of 20.3 million barrels recorded in 2005. Utah’s total petroleum product consumption steadily decreased from a record high of 56.9 million barrels in 2006 to 49.3 million barrels in 2010, as product prices rose to rec-ord highs and the sluggish economy lowered demand. Con-versely, 2011 petroleum consumption is estimated to increase 12% to 55.2 million barrels. Utah refineries exported 23.1 million barrels of petroleum products via pipeline to other states in 2011, up 7.3% from the year before. Utah exports will increase significantly in 2012 as petroleum products flow via a new pipeline from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas. Natural Gas Production. Utah’s natural gas production reached a new record high in 2011 of 462 Bcf. Marketed production and actual natural gas sales also increased to 457 and 404 Bcf, respectively. Roughly 11% of natural gas production was from coalbed methane wells, but this percentage has been decreasing as numerous new conventional wells are drilled in the Uinta Basin, and existing coalbed methane wells have declining production rates of natural gas. Several shale gas exploratory wells have been drilled in Utah over the past few years, but only a few wells in the Uinta Basin have recorded any natural gas production from a shale formation. Prices. The average wellhead price for natural gas in Utah decreased 7.8%, from $4.23 per Mcf in 2010 to $3.90 in 2011. However, this decrease in wellhead price did not translate into lower consumer prices. The average price of residential natural gas was $8.44 per Mcf in 2011, 2.7% higher than the 2010 price of $8.22. Despite record high natural gas produc-tion in 2011, the lower wellhead price translated into a lower overall value for natural gas of $1.8 billion, but still the 5th highest in history. Consumption. Estimated 2011 natural gas consumption in Utah decreased 4.4% in 2011 to 209 Bcf, due in large part to a 17% decrease in the amount of natural gas used at electric utilities. In contrast, industrial use of natural gas increased by 4.3% in 2011 to 33.5 Bcf, but still well below peak industrial consumption of 45.5 Bcf reached in 1998. Utah only con-sumes 45% of in-state production, making Utah a net export-er of natural gas. Coal Production. Utah coal production increased 3.4% in 2011 to 20.1 million short tons. This increase was the result of the January 2011 re-opening of the Castle Valley #4 mine (formally called the Bear Canyon #4 mine), the opening of the Coal Hollow mine in southern Utah’s Alton coalfield, and small production increases at several other mines. These increases made up for the December 2010 idling of the Em-ery mine and the loss of an annual one million tons of pro-duction. Lower demand for coal at electric power plants be-cause of a recession-related decrease in demand for electricity

Energy

Utah continues to experience significant annual increases in crude oil production stemming from healthy crude oil prices, which spurs exploration and development in the Uinta Basin. Despite a weaker natural gas price, production reached a new record high in 2011 as natural gas was captured from new crude oil wells. Coal production in 2011 increased slightly as the Castle Valley mine reopened and production began at the new Coal Hollow mine in southern Utah. Production of electricity in Utah decreased for the third straight year, still hampered by a slowdown in the economy, while Utah’s 2011 average cost of electricity remained well below the national average, mainly due to our reliance on established low-cost coal-fired generation. Consumption of petroleum products and electricity increased in 2011, possibly signaling an im-proving economy, whereas coal and natural gas consumption both dropped. Utah will continue to be a net-exporter of energy, producing more natural gas, coal, and electricity than is used in-state, but will remain reliant on other states and Canada for crude oil and petroleum products as in-state pro-duction only accounts for 48% of in-state demand.


has kept total annual production well below the historic aver-age of about 25 million tons per year. Despite the small in-crease in production in 2011, coal distribution declined to 18.7 million tons. Prices. The average mine-mouth price for Utah coal in-creased 6.5% in 2011 to $32.89 per short ton. This is a new record-high price in nominal dollars, but well below the infla-tion-adjusted high of $91 per ton reached in 1976. Prices are expected to remain in the mid-$30 per ton range over the next few years as the cost of mining increases. The end-use price of coal at Utah electric utilities, which includes transpor-tation costs, increased 5.3% to $39.68 per ton in 2011, also a new record in nominal dollars. The value of coal produced in Utah totaled $660 million in 2011, well below the inflation-adjusted high of $1.2 billion recorded in 1982. Consumption. Approximately 15.5 million short tons of coal were consumed in Utah in 2011, 96% of which was burned at electric utilities. Demand for coal in Utah has de-clined in recent years with decreasing demand for electricity. Coke consumption in Utah ended in 2002 when Geneva Steel went out of business and coal sales for industrial use, mostly cement and lime companies, has also declined to 583,000 tons, a 15-year low. Although Utah imports some coal, it has always been a net exporter, with 5.7 million short tons of coal going to other states and countries in 2011, down 9.7% from 2010 and down a dramatic 40% from 2008. The economic downturn hit other states, particularly Nevada and California, the largest out-of-state consumers of Utah coal, much harder than Utah, resulting in much lower demand for coal at elec-tric power facilities and industrial plants. Electricity (Including Renewable Resources) Production. Electricity generation in Utah reached an all-time high of 46,579 gigawatthours (GWh) in 2008, but has since retreated, totaling 40,522 GWh in 2011, as the recession reduced overall demand, especially for out-of-state users of Utah power generation. The vast majority of electric genera-tion (82%,) came from coal-burning power plants; however, generation from natural gas plants has increased its share of total generation to 13%, six times greater than just seven years ago. Petroleum accounted for 0.1%, mainly used as start-up fuel at coal-burning plants, while renewable re-sources, mostly hydroelectric (2.4%), wind (1.4%), and geo-thermal (0.7%), provided 4.7% of Utah’s total electricity gen-eration. A second phase of the Milford wind farm came online in mid-2011, adding 102 MW of capacity, for a new total of 306 MW. All the electricity from the Milford wind farm goes to customers in southern California. Prices. The higher price of coal, the predominant fuel at electric plants, helped increase overall electricity prices in Utah by 2.7% in 2011. However, Utah's 2011 average electric rate of 7.1 cents per kilowatthour (kWh) for all sectors of the economy is still 30% lower than the national average of 10.0 cents. This is due to Utah’s well established coal-fired power

plants, which supply 82% of electricity generation in the state. The residential price of Utah’s electricity increased 3.0% in 2011 to 9.0 cents per kWh and is much lower than the nation-al average of 11.8 cents per kWh. Consumption. After recording the first electricity consump-tion decline in over 20 years in 2009, demand has again in-creased for the past two years, totaling 28,859 GWh in 2011. In fact, since 1980, electricity consumption has averaged a 3.3% increase annually, mirroring Utah’s population rate in-crease (2.1%) combined with the increasing rate of consump-tion per capita (1.2%). Utah is a net exporter of electricity, using only 71% of in-state electricity generation. Conclusion and Outlook for Utah Energy Production and Consumption. Crude oil production in Utah is expected to continue to rise in coming years, especial-ly with high prices spurring increased exploration and produc-tion in the Uinta Basin. However, despite these recent in-creases in crude oil production, Utah will continue to be de-pendent on other states and Canada for crude oil and petrole-um products as current Utah production meets only 48% of in-state demand. Conversely, Utah will continue to produce much more natural gas than it consumes, allowing roughly half of total production to be exported. Coal production is expected to decrease in 2012 to about 17.4 million tons as demand continues to decline. In fact, one of two units at the coal-burning Intermountain Power Plant near Delta, Utah, experienced a 6-month unexpected shut-down, greatly reduc-ing demand for Utah coal. The unit came back online in summer 2012, which should prompt increased coal produc-tion in 2013. Similar to natural gas, Utah produces more coal than it uses, allowing roughly 25% of production to be shipped to other states or countries. Electricity generation should begin to increase in the next few years as the economy improves resulting in higher demand, while electricity con-sumption in Utah should continue on its upward trend. Prices. Crude oil prices increased in 2011 to $82.53 per bar-rel and are expected to again increase in 2012 to an average of between $85 and $90 per barrel. The price of natural gas dropped in 2011 to $3.90 per Mcf and is expected to decrease even further in 2012 to only $2.50 per Mcf. Utah’s mine-mouth coal price continues to increase as mining becomes more difficult and is expected to average about $35 per ton in coming years. With regard to electricity, Utah’s well estab-lished coal-fired power plants will assure affordable, reliable electric power for the foreseeable future and help keep Utah’s electricity prices well below the national average.


Figure 61 Utah’s Crude Oil Production, Pipeline Imports, and Refinery Receipts Plotted with Wellhead Price

Figure 62 Utah's Petroleum Product Production and Consumption Plotted with Motor Gasoline and Diesel Prices

Source: Utah Geological Survey; Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; U.S. Energy Information Administration

Source: Utah Geological Survey; U.S. Energy Information Administration

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

$/b

arre

l

Th

ou

san

d B

arre

ls

Production Pipeline imports Refinery receipts Wellhead price

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

$/G

allo

n

Th

ou

san

d B

arre

ls

Production Consumption Motor Gasoline - Regular unleaded price Diesel price


Figure 63 Utah's Natural Gas Production and Consumption Plotted with Wellhead and Residential Prices

Figure 64 Utah's Coal Production, Consumption, and Exports Plotted with Mine Mouth Price

Source: Utah Geological Survey; Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; U.S. Energy Information Administration


$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

$/T

ho

usa

nd

Cu

bic

Fee

t

Mill

ion

Cu

bic

Fee

t

Gross production Marketed production Consumption

Wellhead price Residential price

$14.00

$16.00

$18.00

$20.00

$22.00

$24.00

$26.00

$28.00

$30.00

$32.00

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

$/S

ho

rt T

on

Th

ou

san

d S

ho

rt T

on

s

Production Consumption Exports (other states and countries) Mine mouth price


Figure 65 Utah's Electricity Net Generation and Consumption Plotted with End-Use Residential Price


5

6

7

8

9

10

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

¢/K

ilo

wat

tho

ur

Gig

awat

tho

urs

Net Generation Consumption Residential Price


Table 72 Supply, Disposition, Price, and Value of Crude Oil in Utah

Price Value

YearUtah Crude Production

Colorado Imports

Wyoming Imports

Canadian Imports

Utah Crude Exports*

Refinery Receipts

Refinery Inputs

Refinery Beginning

StocksWellhead

Value of Utah Crude

Oil$/barrel Million $

1980 24,979 15,846 12,233 0 8,232 44,291 44,421 665 19.79 494.31981 24,309 14,931 11,724 0 7,866 42,876 43,007 762 34.14 829.91982 23,595 13,911 12,033 0 7,826 40,372 40,368 593 30.50 719.71983 31,045 14,696 7,283 0 8,316 43,901 43,844 632 28.12 873.01984 38,054 13,045 6,195 0 13,616 43,745 43,544 606 27.21 1,035.41985 41,080 13,107 6,827 0 14,597 45,224 45,357 695 23.98 985.11986 39,243 12,567 7,574 0 15,721 45,086 45,034 559 13.33 523.11987 35,829 13,246 7,454 0 12,137 45,654 45,668 613 17.22 617.01988 33,365 12,783 14,739 0 8,411 48,690 48,604 599 14.24 475.11989 28,504 13,861 18,380 0 6,179 47,989 47,948 626 18.63 531.01990 27,705 14,494 18,844 0 7,725 49,104 48,977 656 22.61 626.41991 25,928 14,423 20,113 0 8,961 48,647 48,852 749 19.99 518.31992 24,074 13,262 21,949 0 6,901 50,079 49,776 513 19.39 466.81993 21,826 11,575 22,279 0 7,123 48,554 48,307 645 17.48 381.51994 20,668 10,480 26,227 0 6,913 48,802 48,486 691 16.38 338.51995 19,976 9,929 24,923 60 6,754 46,641 46,634 806 17.71 353.81996 19,529 9,857 24,297 783 6,862 46,126 46,265 768 21.10 412.11997 19,593 8,565 28,162 2,858 7,105 48,492 48,477 633 18.57 363.81998 19,218 8,161 28,779 6,097 7,445 50,017 49,476 613 12.52 240.61999 16,362 7,335 28,461 8,067 6,905 52,271 50,556 704 17.69 289.42000 15,609 7,163 26,367 11,528 6,350 49,716 49,999 786 28.53 445.32001 15,269 7,208 25,100 11,364 5,637 50,310 50,143 457 24.09 367.82002 13,771 7,141 25,455 12,215 5,312 49,962 49,987 591 23.87 328.72003 13,097 6,964 24,152 9,690 4,654 48,267 48,284 547 28.88 378.32004 14,744 7,559 22,911 12,195 4,222 53,400 53,180 532 39.35 580.22005 16,676 8,214 24,372 10,991 4,064 54,513 54,544 767 53.98 900.22006 17,927 9,355 23,256 11,102 3,889 55,119 55,192 728 59.70 1,070.22007 19,535 10,708 22,012 8,769 4,074 54,764 54,952 662 62.48 1,220.62008 22,041 10,259 21,316 6,382 4,082 53,637 53,165 473 86.58 1,908.32009 22,942 7,409 15,415 5,520 3,888 52,475 52,479 519 50.22 1,152.12010 24,660 6,525 20,144 4,278 4,016 51,637 51,678 511 68.09 1,679.12011 26,260 6,997 20,536 3,894 4,309 55,900 55,656 473 82.53 2,167.3

*Estimated

Note: Prices and values are in nominal dollars.

Source: Utah Geological Survey; Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining; U.S. Energy Information Administration.

1Out-of-state imports only include pipeline shipments; minor imports may arrive by truck, and additional minor imports may come

Supply1 Disposition

Thousand barrels Thousand barrels


Table 73 Supply, Disposition, and Select Prices of Petroleum Products in Utah

Exports

YearRefined in

Utah

Refinery Beginning

Stocks

Refined Product Pipeline

Imports1

Motor Gasoline

Jet Fuel

Distillate Fuel

All Other

Total

Pipeline Exports to

Other

States1

Motor Gasoline -

Regular Unleaded

Diesel

Thousand barrels

1980 45,340 3,202 6,427 15,534 2,637 8,401 9,412 35,983 22,136 1.27 0.951981 49,622 3,376 7,401 15,548 2,424 7,098 5,742 30,812 23,630 1.42 1.101982 44,011 2,979 8,933 15,793 2,801 6,438 5,531 30,563 22,119 1.40 1.061983 47,663 3,153 6,943 15,954 3,284 6,387 6,691 32,316 25,298 1.16 1.011984 48,493 2,842 8,215 16,151 3,413 6,107 6,430 32,101 24,121 1.14 1.001985 50,188 2,989 8,030 16,240 3,808 5,715 6,046 31,809 23,365 1.14 0.971986 51,822 2,803 8,766 17,541 4,335 6,978 5,552 34,406 20,027 0.86 0.821987 51,519 2,661 8,695 17,623 4,969 6,507 6,074 35,172 20,359 0.92 0.881988 57,354 2,306 8,926 18,148 4,977 7,060 5,787 35,971 22,031 0.95 0.891989 55,184 2,685 9,550 17,311 5,095 5,917 6,372 34,694 21,409 1.02 0.991990 57,349 3,000 10,647 16,724 5,281 7,162 5,915 35,082 21,419 1.12 1.171991 57,446 2,758 11,459 17,395 5,917 7,038 6,583 36,933 21,918 1.09 1.091992 57,786 2,746 10,534 17,905 5,607 7,286 5,726 36,524 21,087 1.10 1.071993 57,503 2,840 10,707 18,837 5,518 7,422 5,645 37,422 19,539 1.07 1.061994 59,458 3,173 11,555 19,433 5,270 7,653 5,919 38,275 21,326 1.07 1.041995 57,974 2,907 12,289 20,771 5,658 8,469 6,820 41,718 20,512 1.10 1.101996 58,852 3,253 12,692 21,170 6,303 8,746 8,410 44,628 20,512 1.21 1.251997 58,677 2,640 12,949 22,024 6,279 9,976 6,249 44,529 22,444 1.26 1.231998 62,012 2,908 12,842 22,735 6,379 10,398 5,940 45,452 22,474 1.08 1.051999 58,201 2,780 14,509 23,141 7,443 9,793 6,429 46,806 22,887 1.22 1.152000 59,125 2,426 14,568 23,895 7,701 10,629 6,954 49,179 22,811 1.48 1.502001 59,094 2,306 15,764 22,993 6,880 11,236 6,904 48,167 23,937 1.41 1.372002 59,514 2,739 16,848 24,158 6,416 11,482 5,394 47,607 24,082 1.32 1.292003 57,511 2,846 16,515 24,325 6,758 11,731 6,916 49,897 22,729 1.56 1.502004 63,071 2,599 18,486 24,744 7,137 12,264 6,288 50,625 24,475 1.82 1.882005 63,487 2,806 20,258 24,677 7,394 13,717 7,016 52,978 24,482 2.20 2.482006 64,806 2,587 18,976 25,312 7,560 17,292 6,699 56,863 23,321 2.50 2.812007 66,443 2,924 15,991 26,054 7,085 15,946 6,465 55,550 22,851 2.73 3.002008 65,178 2,513 14,854 25,051 6,509 14,943 6,452 52,955 21,619 3.22 3.832009 64,752 2,715 13,138 25,324 5,751 12,969 5,697 49,553 21,043 2.23 2.482010 62,310 2,665 12,307 24,608 5,875 12,942 5,859 49,284 21,490 2.82 3.022011* 65,369 2,689 11,383 27,200 5,600 15,300 7,100 55,200 23,058 3.44 3.87

*Consumption is estimated.1Amounts shipped by truck are unknown.

Note: Prices are in nominal dollars.

Source: Utah Geological Survey, U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Prices

$/gallon

Supply Consumption by Product

Thousand barrels Thousand barrels


Tabl

e 74

Su

pply

, Dis

posi

tion,

Pric

es, a

nd V

alue

of N

atur

al G

as in

Uta

h

Val

ue

Yea

rG

ross

P

rodu

ctio

nM

arke

ted

Pro

duct

ion

Act

ual

Sal

esR

esid

entia

lC

omm

erci

alV

ehic

le

Fue

lIn

dust

rial

Ele

ctric

U

tiliti

esLe

ase

&

Pla

ntP

ipel

ine

Tota

lW

ellh

ead

End

-Use

R

esid

entia

lE

nd-U

se

Com

mer

cial

End

-Use

In

dust

rial

End

-Use

E

lect

ric

Util

ities

Val

ue o

f M

arke

ted

Pro

duct

ion

Mill

ion

$

1980

87,7

6647

,857

na45

,735

12,2

340

43,5

455,

133

7,59

485

111

5,09

21.

122.

745.

592.

262.

0053

.619

8190

,936

59,1

20na

43,4

9711

,635

042

,779

3,09

751

172

110

2,24

01.

103.

235.

352.

582.

2965

.019

8210

0,62

849

,995

na53

,482

14,3

060

39,8

043,

023

5,96

51,

126

117,

706

3.06

3.41

3.43

2.45

2.43

153.

019

8396

,933

20,9

25na

49,6

4513

,279

040

,246

1,25

94,

538

1,21

811

0,18

53.

404.

264.

323.

153.

1371

.119

8419

4,44

874

,698

na49

,869

13,3

390

42,7

0927

18,

375

1,01

511

5,57

84.

085.

684.

963.

523.

7230

4.8

1985

210,

267

83,4

05na

53,0

4314

,189

037

,448

235

9,00

11,

201

115,

117

3.52

4.86

4.91

3.23

4.12

293.

619

8623

9,25

990

,013

na49

,144

13,1

460

28,2

6423

013

,289

1,10

210

5,17

52.

904.

644.

733.

005.

1026

1.0

1987

262,

084

87,1

58na

41,5

3614

,811

023

,884

263

17,6

7182

298

,987

1.88

4.97

4.98

3.20

5.07

163.

919

8827

8,57

810

1,37

2na

42,2

4117

,911

030

,354

196

16,8

891,

362

108,

953

2.39

5.11

4.08

3.10

2.83

242.

319

8927

8,32

112

0,08

9na

45,1

6816

,522

033

,963

636

16,2

111,

037

113,

537

1.58

5.14

4.16

3.30

3.29

189.

719

9032

3,02

814

5,87

563

,336

43,4

2416

,220

135

,502

907

19,7

1987

511

6,64

81.

705.

284.

303.

625.

0424

8.0

1991

329,

464

144,

817

65,2

8850

,572

19,2

766

43,1

205,

190

13,7

3886

413

2,76

61.

545.

444.

503.

691.

6222

3.0

1992

317,

763

171,

293

94,7

2544

,701

16,5

8415

040

,878

6,57

612

,611

1,28

412

2,78

41.

635.

444.

403.

911.

7427

9.2

1993

338,

276

225,

401

137,

864

51,7

7922

,588

188

42,3

006,

305

12,5

262,

513

138,

199

1.77

5.13

4.06

3.67

2.18

399.

019

9434

8,14

027

0,85

816

0,96

748

,922

26,5

0120

136

,618

8,90

013

,273

2,80

713

7,22

21.

544.

963.

842.

742.

3241

7.1

1995

308,

695

241,

290

164,

059

48,9

7526

,825

286

42,3

358,

707

27,0

122,

831

156,

971

1.15

4.74

3.64

2.34

2.14

277.

519

9628

0,43

925

0,76

717

9,94

354

,344

29,5

4337

842

,213

4,08

727

,119

3,60

116

1,28

51.

394.

473.

382.

101.

7934

8.6

1997

272,

554

257,

139

183,

427

58,1

0831

,129

273

44,1

624,

079

24,6

192,

935

165,

305

1.86

5.13

3.92

2.55

2.03

478.

319

9829

7,50

327

7,34

020

1,41

656

,843

30,9

5563

645

,501

5,94

527

,466

2,78

817

0,13

41.

735.

574.

353.

002.

0247

9.8

1999

277,

494

262,

614

205,

036

55,4

7430

,361

889

40,8

586,

478

23,8

102,

561

160,

431

1.93

5.37

4.13

2.94

2.54

506.

820

0028

1,17

026

9,28

522

5,95

855

,626

31,2

8284

839

,378

10,5

4424

,670

2,67

416

5,02

23.

286.

204.

923.

933.

8488

3.3

2001

300,

961

283,

913

247,

056

55,0

0830

,917

474

33,5

8415

,141

20,0

144,

161

159,

299

3.52

8.09

6.78

5.29

4.64

999.

420

0229

3,03

027

4,73

924

7,56

159

,398

33,5

0148

226

,879

15,4

3921

,697

5,98

416

3,38

01.

996.

395.

203.

914.

4554

6.7

2003

287,

141

268,

058

242,

234

54,6

3230

,994

589

25,2

0014

,484

20,8

797,

347

154,

125

4.11

7.33

5.95

5.04

4.60

1,10

1.7

2004

293,

831

277,

969

251,

841

60,5

2731

,156

661

26,6

749,

423

19,1

728,

278

155,

891

5.24

8.12

6.75

5.90

5.22

1,45

6.6

2005

313,

495

301,

223

275,

630

58,0

4434

,447

187

25,3

7012

,239

21,1

308,

859

160,

276

7.16

9.71

8.23

7.33

6.92

2,15

6.8

2006

356,

342

348,

320

318,

714

60,0

1734

,051

186

29,0

7628

,953

23,9

6011

,156

187,

399

5.49

11.0

29.

618.

026.

191,

912.

320

0738

5,51

937

6,40

934

4,53

460

,563

34,4

4720

931

,578

56,4

3824

,494

11,9

7021

9,69

93.

869.

448.

036.

355.

601,

452.

920

0844

2,52

443

3,56

640

1,96

465

,974

37,6

1220

833

,112

55,3

7420

,375

11,5

3222

4,18

76.

159.

007.

747.

216.

382,

666.

420

0944

9,63

744

4,16

240

5,62

165

,184

37,0

2414

929

,845

49,9

8421

,795

10,2

3921

4,22

03.

388.

957.

575.

623.

561,

501.

320

1043

8,42

643

2,04

538

9,16

866

,087

38,4

6116

732

,079

48,3

9923

,638

10,3

4721

9,17

84.

238.

226.

835.

574.

341,

827.

620

11*

461,

829

456,

523

404,

068

65,1

8537

,300

179

33,4

5040

,247

22,6

0010

,500

209,

461

3.90

8.44

7.06

5.49

4.34

1,78

0.4

*Mar

kete

d pr

oduc

tion,

con

sum

ptio

n, a

nd w

ellh

ead

pric

e ar

e es

timat

ed.

na =

not

ava

ilabl

e

Not

e:

Pric

es a

nd v

alue

s ar

e in

nom

inal

dol

lars

.

Sou

rce:

U

tah

Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y; U

tah

Div

isio

n of

Oil,

Gas

, an

d M

inin

g; U

.S.

Ene

rgy

Info

rmat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion.

Pric

es

$/th

ousa

nd c

ubic

feet

Sup

ply

Mill

ion

cubi

c fe

et

Con

sum

ptio

n by

End

Use

Mill

ion

cubi

c fe

et


Tabl

e 75

Su

pply

, Dis

posi

tion,

Pric

e, a

nd V

alue

of C

oal i

n U

tah

Dis

trib

utio

nV

alue

Yea

rP

rodu

ctio

nIm

port

sTo

tal

Dis

trib

utio

n of

Uta

h C

oal

Res

iden

tial &

Com

mer

cial

Cok

e P

lant

sO

ther

In

dust

rial

Ele

ctric

U

tiliti

esTo

tal

To O

ther

U

.S.

Sta

tes

To C

anad

a an

d/or

O

vers

eas

Min

e m

outh

End

-Use

E

lect

ric

Util

ities

Val

ue o

f U

tah

Coa

l

Thou

sand

M

illio

n $

1980

13,2

361,

214

13,0

1423

71,

473

501

4,89

57,

106

5,07

877

625

.63

26.0

633

9.2

1981

13,8

081,

136

14,5

5019

61,

477

804

4,95

67,

433

5,29

23,

472

26.8

728

.99

371.

019

8216

,912

797

15,4

3717

784

581

84,

947

6,78

76,

084

2,17

729

.42

32.5

949

7.6

1983

11,8

2993

712

,157

191

831

627

5,22

36,

872

4,78

71,

346

28.3

230

.96

335.

019

8412

,259

1,53

912

,006

259

1,32

660

85,

712

7,90

55,

583

849

29.2

030

.65

358.

019

8512

,831

1,58

014

,384

252

1,25

447

26,

325

8,30

35,

924

625

27.6

932

.34

355.

319

8614

,269

1,14

513

,268

191

785

380

6,75

68,

112

4,81

555

127

.64

32.3

339

4.4

1987

16,5

211,

165

16,9

8912

40

507

11,1

7511

,806

5,07

855

525

.67

29.0

942

4.1

1988

18,1

642,

448

18,2

4419

61,

176

597

12,5

4414

,513

4,88

11,

044

22.8

529

.07

415.

019

8920

,517

2,36

720

,289

231

1,17

868

612

,949

15,0

445,

108

2,17

522

.01

28.4

645

1.6

1990

22,0

122,

137

21,6

8026

71,

231

676

13,5

6315

,737

5,75

91,

708

21.7

826

.84

479.

419

9121

,875

2,00

721

,673

305

1,19

250

812

,829

14,8

345,

842

2,11

221

.56

27.3

347

1.6

1992

21,0

152,

155

21,3

3922

31,

114

525

13,8

5715

,719

6,08

72,

245

21.8

327

.56

458.

819

9321

,723

2,10

021

,935

121

1,00

572

714

,210

16,0

636,

194

2,56

721

.17

27.1

545

9.9

1994

24,4

222,

588

23,4

4110

51,

007

835

14,6

5616

,603

7,47

12,

717

20.0

725

.76

490.

119

9525

,051

1,84

125

,443

7799

091

513

,693

15,6

759,

037

3,81

119

.11

24.9

347

8.7

1996

27,0

711,

925

27,8

1694

1,04

751

213

,963

15,6

169,

648

5,46

818

.50

24.3

850

0.8

1997

26,4

282,

615

25,4

0712

31,

020

709

14,6

5416

,506

7,86

23,

513

18.3

424

.93

484.

719

9826

,600

2,71

526

,974

113

971

1,30

415

,094

17,4

8210

,535

2,73

517

.83

25.6

247

4.3

1999

26,4

912,

159

26,1

8011

474

174

415

,011

16,6

109,

514

2,56

717

.36

23.6

245

9.9

2000

26,9

202,

467

27,6

2959

984

1,16

615

,164

17,3

739,

672

2,96

016

.93

23.2

345

5.8

2001

27,0

242,

676

26,7

9860

806

1,23

514

,906

17,0

0710

,728

2,40

417

.76

25.5

547

9.9

2002

25,2

992,

090

24,3

7819

80

592

15,6

4416

,434

9,38

787

518

.20

21.9

546

0.4

2003

23,0

692,

036

23,3

1861

061

116

,302

16,9

749,

584

222

16.3

621

.63

377.

420

0421

,818

3,20

623

,681

213

079

516

,606

17,6

149,

273

295

16.8

225

.17

367.

020

0524

,556

2,78

623

,451

450

800

16,4

8417

,329

8,27

321

218

.71

24.5

245

9.4

2006

26,1

311,

928

24,5

2235

087

116

,609

17,5

159,

193

3421

.77

27.3

456

8.9

2007

24,2

881,

496

24,8

4523

087

016

,593

17,4

868,

878

173

24.7

530

.33

601.

120

0824

,275

2,51

325

,062

00

852

16,9

2717

,779

9,22

931

227

.70

30.6

667

2.4

2009

21,9

274,

197

20,6

360

072

215

,925

16,6

476,

642

031

.21

33.9

668

4.3

2010

19,4

061,

994

19,1

170

074

315

,233

15,9

765,

692

634

30.8

937

.68

599.

520

1120

,073

2,02

018

,697

00

583

14,9

2715

,510

4,86

884

232

.89

39.6

866

0.2

Not

e:

Pric

es a

nd v

alue

s ar

e in

nom

inal

dol

lars

.

Sou

rce:

U

tah

Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y, U

.S.

Ene

rgy

Info

rmat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion.

Pric

es

$/sh

ort

ton

Sup

ply

Con

sum

ptio

n by

End

Use

Exp

orts

Thou

sand

sho

rt t

ons

Thou

sand

sho

rt t

ons

Thou

sand

sho

rt t

ons


Tabl

e 76

Su

pply

, Dis

posi

tion,

and

Pric

e of

Ele

ctric

ity in

Uta

h

Yea

rC

oal

Pet

role

umN

atur

al

Gas

Hyd

roG

eo-

ther

mal

Win

dO

ther

Ren

ewab

les1

Oth

er2

Tota

lR

esid

entia

lC

omm

erci

alIn

dust

rial

Tota

lC

onsu

mpt

ion

Per

Cap

itaR

esid

entia

lC

omm

erci

alIn

dust

rial

All

Sec

tors

MW

h/pe

rson

1980

10,8

7063

358

821

00

00

12,1

123,

116

3,14

14,

448

10,7

057.

35.

54.

33.

34.

319

8110

,869

4023

062

30

00

011

,762

3,43

62,

999

5,45

111

,886

7.8

6.0

5.0

3.7

4.7

1982

10,6

3529

203

1,02

40

00

011

,891

3,78

53,

207

5,39

912

,391

8.0

6.3

5.7

4.2

5.2

1983

10,9

2140

691,

394

00

00

12,4

243,

804

3,35

06,

040

13,1

948.

36.

96.

34.

45.

619

8412

,321

308

1,39

138

00

013

,788

3,85

64,

269

4,59

212

,717

7.8

7.4

6.5

4.6

6.0

1985

14,2

2940

141,

019

110

00

015

,412

3,98

54,

596

4,45

813

,039

7.9

7.8

6.9

5.0

6.4

1986

15,1

5574

61,

413

172

00

016

,819

3,98

94,

682

4,31

812

,989

7.8

8.0

7.1

5.2

6.6

1987

25,2

2192

1385

616

40

00

26,3

463,

980

4,86

34,

555

13,3

988.

08.

07.

14.

96.

519

8828

,806

595

593

174

00

029

,637

4,15

15,

035

5,32

114

,507

8.6

7.8

7.0

4.6

6.2

1989

29,6

7648

3756

217

30

00

30,4

964,

163

5,17

35,

629

14,9

658.

87.

46.

74.

15.

819

9031

,523

5214

650

815

20

018

232

,564

4,24

65,

389

5,76

615

,402

8.9

7.1

6.3

3.8

5.5

1991

28,8

8851

550

627

186

00

204

30,5

064,

460

5,57

15,

876

15,9

078.

97.

16.

13.

95.

519

9231

,553

3463

160

223

30

023

033

,284

4,50

55,

850

6,21

216

,567

9.0

7.0

6.0

3.7

5.3

1993

32,1

2637

606

860

187

00

281

34,0

974,

726

5,92

06,

221

16,8

678.

96.

96.

03.

85.

319

9433

,131

3380

775

023

30

028

135

,235

5,00

96,

340

6,49

817

,847

9.2

6.9

5.9

3.8

5.4

1995

30,6

1136

791

969

168

00

261

32,8

365,

041

6,46

26,

957

18,4

609.

36.

95.

93.

75.

319

9631

,101

4732

41,

049

223

00

239

32,9

835,

481

6,71

77,

660

19,8

589.

77.

05.

93.

75.

319

9732

,544

4732

81,

344

203

00

281

34,7

475,

661

7,28

57,

430

20,3

769.

76.

95.

73.

55.

219

9833

,588

3552

81,

315

195

00

285

35,9

455,

756

7,43

37,

511

20,7

009.

76.

85.

73.

55.

219

9934

,534

3161

01,

255

186

08

191

36,8

156,

236

8,07

57,

568

21,8

7910

.06.

35.

33.

44.

920

0034

,491

5889

074

618

60

925

836

,639

6,51

48,

754

7,91

723

,185

10.3

6.3

5.2

3.4

4.8

2001

33,6

7958

1,44

650

818

60

54

35,8

876,

693

9,11

37,

411

23,2

1710

.16.

75.

63.

55.

220

0234

,488

541,

380

458

218

06

536

,608

6,93

89,

309

7,01

923

,267

10.0

6.8

5.6

3.8

5.4

2003

35,9

7933

1,38

342

119

80

54

38,0

247,

166

9,04

87,

646

23,8

6010

.16.

95.

63.

85.

420

0436

,618

3391

045

019

50

43

38,2

127,

325

9,37

07,

816

24,5

1210

.17.

25.

94.

05.

720

0535

,970

411,

178

784

185

04

338

,165

7,56

79,

444

7,98

925

,000

10.0

7.5

6.1

4.2

5.9

2006

36,8

5662

3,38

974

719

10

155

41,2

638,

232

9,77

88,

356

26,3

6610

.27.

66.

24.

26.

020

0737

,171

397,

424

539

164

031

545

,373

8,75

210

,275

8,75

927

,785

10.5

8.2

6.5

4.5

6.4

2008

38,0

2044

7,36

666

825

424

2417

946

,579

8,78

610

,319

9,08

628

,192

10.5

8.3

6.7

4.6

6.5

2009

35,5

2636

6,44

483

527

916

048

215

43,5

438,

725

10,2

688,

594

27,5

8710

.18.

57.

04.

86.

820

1034

,057

506,

455

696

277

448

5621

042

,249

8,83

410

,402

8,80

828

,044

10.1

8.7

7.2

4.9

6.9

2011

33,0

6750

5,31

297

828

357

657

199

40,5

228,

947

10,5

799,

333

28,8

5910

.29.

07.

45.

17.

1

1In

clud

es la

ndfil

l gas

and

bio

geni

c m

unic

ipal

sol

id w

aste

.2In

clud

es n

onbi

ogen

ic m

unic

ipal

sol

id w

aste

and

oth

er m

anuf

actu

red

and

was

te g

ases

der

ived

from

foss

il fu

els.

Not

e:

Pric

es a

re in

nom

inal

dol

lars

.

Sou

rce:

U

tah

Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y, U

.S.

Ene

rgy

Info

rmat

ion

Adm

inis

trat

ion

¢/ki

low

atth

our

Pric

es b

y E

nd U

seN

et G

ener

atio

n by

Fue

l Typ

eC

onsu

mpt

ion

by E

nd U

se

Gig

awat

thou

rsG

igaw

atth

ours

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 163 Minerals UT

2011 Summary The UGS estimated value of Utah's nonfuel and solid energy (coal and uranium) mineral production in 2011 totaled $5.2 billion, an increase of about $449 million (9%) from 2010. The contribution of each mineral segment was: base metals, $2.6 billion (50%); industrial minerals, $1.2 billion (23%); precious metals, $720 million (14%); and energy minerals (coal and uranium), $690 million (13%). Base Metals. At $2.6 billion, base metal production was the largest contributor to the total value of Utah minerals pro-duced in 2011. Base metal values decreased about 3% from 2010 figures due largely to a 22% decrease in the production of copper. About 94% of the total base metal value was pro-vided by copper (67%), molybdenum (18%), and magnesium (9%). Iron, beryllium, and vanadium made up the remaining 6%. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. (KUCC) mined about 97% of the copper and all of the molybdenum produced in Utah in 2011 from the Bingham Canyon mine in Salt Lake County. Lisbon Valley Mining Co. produced the remaining 3% of the copper total from their mine in San Juan County. U.S. Mag-nesium, LLC, the only primary magnesium processing facility in the United States, produces the metal from Great Salt Lake brines at their electrolytic plant in Tooele County. Materion Natural Resources, Inc., the only U.S. producer of beryllium concentrates, operates a mine in Juab County and a pro-cessing mill in Millard County. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. produces vanadium as a by-product at their uranium mill in San Juan County. CML Metals, Inc. reinitiated iron produc-tion late in 2010 at their Iron County mine. A concentrator designed to produce high-grade iron concentrate was com-pleted in early 2012 and is expected to boost annual produc-tion to about 1.8 million metric tons (2.0 million short tons) of concentrate.

Industrial Minerals. Industrial minerals production was the second-largest contributor to the value of Utah’s minerals in 2011. The 2011 value of industrial minerals increased about 34%, for a total of approximately $1.2 billion. Brine-derived commodities including salt, magnesium chloride, and potash are largely, but not exclusively, developed from Great Salt Lake. In 2011, these products were valued at $390 million and constituted the largest industrial mineral component. Three of the six major producers of these products operate along the shore of Great Salt Lake in Tooele and Weber Counties. The other producers operate in western Tooele County, Sanpete County, and at a facility on the border of Grand and San Juan Counties. Construction sand and gravel, crushed stone, and dimension stone constituted the second-largest component of industrial mineral production with a value of approximately $263 mil-lion, about $69 million more than 2010. These commodities are produced by a large number of operators, both large and small, across the state. Portland cement, lime, and limestone products were valued at about $195 million in 2011, approxi-mately 26% more than the previous year, and made up the third largest industrial mineral component. Cement was pro-duced by Ash Grove Cement Co. in Juab County and Holcim (U.S.), Inc. in Morgan County. Lime was produced by Gray-mont Western U.S., Inc. in Millard County. A number of operators produced about 3.4 million metric tons (3.8 million short tons) of limestone across the state in 2011, an increase of about 18% over 2010 production. Simplot Phosphates, LLC in Uintah County is Utah’s only phosphate producer. Phosphate is a primary ingredient of fertilizers and its production was up about 12% in 2011. American Gilsonite Co. and Ziegler Chemical and Minerals Co. in Uintah County mined over 20% more gilsonite (an additive in many common products) in 2011 than in 2010. Interstate Brick Co., Holcim (U.S.), Inc., and Interpace Hold-ings, LLC, were the primary producers of common clay, alt-hough a number of other producers operate sporadically. The clay is used mainly to manufacture bricks, and total pro-duction decreased about 14% to approximately 95,000 metric tons (105,000 short tons) in 2011. Western Clay Co. and Redmond Minerals, Inc. together increased bentonite produc-tion (used in many engineering and drilling applications as well as litter-box filler) by over 15% from 2010 to 2011. Utelite, Inc. reported nearly 75% greater 2011 production of lightweight expanded shale aggregates that are used in the construction industry at their Summit County plant. Gypsum is used primarily to make wallboard, although some is used as a cement additive, soil conditioner, and pharmaceutical ingre-dient. Gypsum was produced by Sunroc Corp., United States Gypsum Co., Diamond K Gypsum, Inc., and Nephi Gypsum in 2011. About 19% more gypsum was produced in 2011 than in 2010, but economic considerations still kept one of two wallboard plants in Sevier County shuttered.

Minerals

The Utah Geological Survey (UGS) estimates the nominal value of nonfuel and solid energy mineral (coal and uranium) production in Utah was $5.2 billion in 2011. This is approxi-mately $449 million (9%) higher than the revised $4.8 billion seen in 2010. The overall increase in nonfuel mineral values is primarily due to significant increases in industrial mineral values and a moderate increase in precious metal values that compensated for a slight decline in the value of base metals. The increase in energy mineral values can be attributed to production and price increases for coal, coupled with higher uranium prices. Mineral exploration and development activi-ty increased markedly in late 2010 and has continued into 2012. The value of nonfuel and solid energy minerals pro-duced in Utah in 2012 is anticipated to be slightly lower than the 2011 figure. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ranked Utah fourth nationally in the value of nonfuel mineral pro-duction in 2011.


Precious Metals. At $720 million, precious metals were the third largest contributor to Utah’s nonfuel mineral produc-tion total. The 2011 value of precious metals production rose about 11% above 2010 levels and accounted for about 16% of total nonfuel mineral production values. Gold constituted 86% of the precious metal value with silver contributing the remaining 14%. Both metals are recovered as byproducts of copper mining at Kennecott’s Bingham Canyon mine. Kennecott also owns the nearby Barneys Canyon mine, which ceased active mining in 2001, but is still recovering a minor amount of gold at its leach pad. Energy Minerals. The value of solid energy minerals (coal and uranium) mined totaled approximately $690 million in 2011. The 2011 value of coal increased about $63 million due to increases in production and price as discussed in the ener-gy chapter. In 2011, roughly 508,000 pounds of uranium, valued at about $29 million, was mainly produced from three mines in San Juan County operated by Denison Mines Corp. Uranium spot prices increased in 2011, boosting the overall value by about 4% compared to 2010. Exploration and Development Activity. The substantial increase in mineral exploration and development activity that began in late 2010 continued throughout 2011 with a primary focus on gold, silver, copper, uranium, and potash. The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) manages about 1.8 million hectares (4.4 million acres) of state-owned lands in Utah. In 2011, SITLA issued leases and/or contracts on 91 tracts divided among the following commodi-ties: metals (37), sand and gravel (17), bituminous sands (16), potash (10), building stone (7), oil shale (1), gemstone/fossil (1), gilsonite (1), and other (1). The Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining approved two new large mine permit appli-cations, eight new small mine permits, and 26 Notices of In-tent to explore on public lands in 2011. The number of new unpatented mining claims filed with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management increased from 1467 in 2010 to 5659 in 2011. Juab (gold, silver), Beaver (copper), Millard (copper, gold), Iron (gold, silver), Grand (uranium, lithium), Washington (gold, silver), Tooele (copper, gold), Garfield (uranium), and San Juan (uranium) Counties each recorded at least 250 new mining claims last year. Nonfuel Mineral Production Trends. According to pre-liminary data from the USGS, the value of Utah's nonfuel mineral production (excluding coal and uranium) in 2011 was a record $4.6 billion, representing a 4% increase from the $4.4 billion of 2010. The USGS data also show that over the last 10 years the value of nonfuel mineral production in Utah ranged from a low of $1.2 billion (2002) to the record high of $4.6 billion in 2011. Additionally, Utah’s part of the U.S. total of nonfuel mineral production and our national ranking grew from a low of 3.3% and 11th place in 2002 to 6.2% and fourth place in 2011.

Significant Issues Affecting Utah's Mining Industry Global demand, fueled primarily by consumption in China, for internationally traded base and precious metals (copper, molybdenum, gold, silver) has driven the price of these com-modities up significantly over the past decade, and continued consumption in developing countries is required to keep these segments at their current levels. Economic uncertainty in the United States and Europe also contributes to the esca-lating price of precious metals. The production and value of many industrial minerals have been, and will continue to be, linked to the condition of the housing and commercial con-struction markets. For example, the economic downturn that depressed construction activity beginning in 2008 severely impacted industrial mineral production and value through 2010. Consequently, much of the industrial mineral produc-tion and value increases observed in 2011 can be attributed to renewed construction activity. A major long-term issue for mineral exploration and development involves potential de-creases in available lands due to urban development, tourism, and environmental withdrawals. 2012 Outlook With the exception of coal, the UGS compiles mineral pro-duction statistics only in the fourth quarter of each calendar year, making it difficult to accurately quantify production and value data for the first half of 2012. However, nearly 70% of mineral companies surveyed by the UGS in late 2011 report-ed that they planned to match 2011 production in 2012, and another 20% projected slight to moderate production increas-es. If these production predictions are realized in 2012, the overall value for each commodity will be strongly dependent on price. At the time of writing, it appears the average price for most commodities will remain flat or be slightly less in 2012. Therefore, the overall value of Utah’s nonfuel and energy minerals should decrease slightly in 2012. Base Metals. Base metal prices are expected to be lower in 2012 than in 2011 and production from Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. will likely be flat. Consequently, base metal value, which accounted for 58% of the total value of nonfuel minerals in 2011, will likely be lower in 2012. Because base metals constitute over half of the total value of nonfuel min-erals, decreasing base metal values will strongly impact the nonfuel minerals group as a whole. Active mining and con-centrate production in 2012 from Utah’s Iron County iron mine should have a positive effect on base metals value, but due to iron’s small overall share of total base metal value the positive effect will be negligible. A decrease in vanadium production and a resulting lower value is expected in 2012 due to Denison Mines USA Corporation’s (acquired by En-ergy Fuels, Inc. in June 2012) shift to processing non-vanadium-bearing ore at their White Mesa mill. Industrial Minerals. As a whole, industrial mineral produc-tion will likely remain stable in 2012 compared to the previ-ous year. Both gilsonite producers anticipate increases in


their 2012 production. All clay and bentonite producers planned to maintain or increase their level of production through 2012. Phosphate, gypsum, and lime production lev-els are not expected to change substantially in 2012. Quarries producing sand and gravel, crushed stone, and dimension stone generally expected to maintain production at 2011 lev-els, but some anticipate increased or decreased production in 2012. Most producers of brine-derived products planned to match 2011 production in 2012, but one indicated they would produce less. While prices for potash and a few other indus-trial minerals have increased in 2012, most have been relative-ly stagnant. Although individual industrial mineral prices could experience wide swings in either direction, it appears that 2012 prices overall are unlikely to increase significantly. Consequently, the value of industrial minerals will likely be flat or make only slight gains. Precious Metals. Major precious metal producer Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. estimates its 2012 production will be flat. Despite some fluctuation in the 2012 prices of silver and gold, both are likely to achieve an average 2012 price slightly lower than in 2011, suggesting the value of precious metals will be lower in 2012. Energy Minerals. Despite higher coal prices in 2012, Utah’s total projected 2012 production is expected to drop signifi-cantly, lowering its overall value. Coal production declines in 2012 are the result of decreased demand at electric utilities due to a catastrophic outage at a major plant and continued recession-related weak demand for electricity. Although ura-nium prices are likely to remain stable, Denison Mines USA Corp. (now Energy Fuels, Inc.) is expected to increase urani-um 2012 production by over 40%, which should raise the value of uranium produced in Utah in 2012. Conclusion The total value of Utah's nonfuel and solid energy mineral (coal and uranium) commodities was about $5.2 billion in 2011, approximately 9% higher than in 2010. The value of industrial minerals increased by 34% in 2011 compared to 2010, setting a record high due to increased prices and/or greater production of some commodities. Various combina-tions of positive and negative changes in price and produc-tion for each base metal between 2010 and 2011 resulted in an overall value decrease of about 3%. Substantial price in-creases for gold and silver in 2011 yielded an 11% value in-crease for precious metals despite decreased production. In total, nonfuel mineral values set a record high of $4.6 billion in 2011. Coal production and price increased in 2011, as did the price of uranium, leading to an overall 10% rise in solid energy mineral values. Increased prices for many nonfuel commodities, especially metals, spurred an increase in explo-ration and development activities in 2011. As many prices remain high in 2012, exploration levels will likely increase. Utah will probably continue to be ranked fourth nationally for nonfuel mineral production in 2012. Although there is a

moderately high degree of uncertainty in the estimates, the UGS anticipates that Utah's nonfuel and energy mineral val-ues will be modestly lower in 2012, primarily due to static production of most commodities coupled with some decreas-ing prices (especially for metals).


Figure 66 Total Annual Value of Utah’s Energy and Mineral Production, Inflation Adjusted to 2011 Dollars

Figure 67 Value of Utah’s Annual Mineral Production in Nominal Dollars

Source: Utah Geological Survey

2,09

3

75

9

209

475

2,8

85

81

1

400 5

88

2,8

27

921

322

631

2,9

00

1,05

3

39

0

71

3

2,14

2

949

63

5

650

2,7

51

85

6

65

8

626

2,63

7

1,1

96

720

69

0

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

Base Metals Industrial Minerals Precious Metals Coal/Uranium

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Note: Coal/Uranium values are coal only for 2001-06. Source: Utah Geological Survey

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,0001

961

196

21

963

196

41

965

196

61

967

196

81

969

197

01

971

197

21

973

197

41

975

197

61

977

197

81

979

198

01

981

198

21

983

198

41

985

198

61

987

198

81

989

199

01

991

199

21

993

199

41

995

199

61

997

199

81

999

200

02

001

200

22

003

200

42

005

200

62

007

200

82

009

201

02

011

Uranium Coal Crude oil Natural gas Nonfuel


Table 68 Total Annual Value of Utah’s Nonfuel Mineral Production in Nominal Dollars

Source: U.S. Geological Survey

1.241.35

1.94

2.79

3.96 3.88

4.16

3.9

4.384.57

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

$3.5

$4.0

$4.5

$5.0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2012 Economic Report to the Governor 169 Tourism, Travel, and Recreation UT

2011 Summary Utah's travel and tourism sector fared well in 2011. Total tourism arrivals increased an estimated 9.0% to 22.0 million. The number of visitors at Utah's national parks, monuments and recreation areas increased. State parks remained flat due to heavy late season snowfall. The 2011-2012 ski season was shorter due to below normal snowfall. Utah skier visits were 3.8 million. But, once again, Utah resorts were ranked very favorably by major ski publica-tions, and the resorts continue to make yearly infrastructure improvements. Vacationing is still important as travelers trade down, not out. Leisure travelers are driving instead of flying, staying closer to home, camping, or staying in budget hotels. Between 2000 and 2011, leisure travelers reported a significantly higher per-centage of weekend trips and the increasing use of weekend trips reflects household budget constraints and the desire to get away. The internet continues to play a key role in travel planning. Leisure travelers use the internet to make travel reservations. 2012 Outlook The outlook for 2012 is cautiously optimistic. Despite factors such as a weak national economy, uncertain stock market, sluggish housing growth, and tepid consumer confidence, Utah tourism is expected to show a modest increase in travel. Slow but steady growth in international, in-state and domestic leisure travel will likely occur. Additionally, Utah should ben-efit from continued strong interest in national parks. Several of Utah's resorts again received high rankings from major ski publications and hope to build on the 2011-2012 season. Competition among nearby destinations for the local and regional markets will continue to intensify. National trends highlight opportunities in key segments of the travel market including adventure travel, cultural and heritage tourism, na-ture-based travel, and family travel. Utah is well positioned to attract these visitors.

Tourism, Travel, and Recreation

Utah’s travel and tourism sector had a successful year in 2011. Total spending by travelers and tourists is estimated to have increased 5.3% to $6.86 billion. Total direct state and local taxes generated by traveler spending is estimated to have increased 5.8% to $890 million. Taxable room rents increased to $1.2 billion, and occupancy rates were up 5.0%. Tourism related employment also increased to 124,059.


Figure 69 Travel-Related Employment

Figure 70 Total Spending by Travelers and Tourists

Source: Governor’s Office of Management & Budget and Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Governor’s Office of Management & Budget and Bureau of Labor Statistics

124.5

138.8 136.9

120.2 122.8 124.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Job

s

$5,908

$6,769 $6,925

$6,232$6,525

$6,869

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

llar

s


Figure 71 Utah Tourism Indicators: Hotel Room Rents

Figure 72 Utah Tourism Indicators: National Park Visits and Skier Visits


Source: National Park Service; Ski Utah

$141

$16

1

$16

5

$176

$197

$221

$24

1

$26

1

$295

$313 $35

2

$37

8

$42

9

$477 $51

9

$540

$545

$56

8

$57

8 $667

$599 $66

1 $754

$74

0 $82

0

$1,

003

$83

6

$969

$1,

151

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

198

3

198

4

198

5

198

6

198

7

198

8

198

9

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

201

1

Mil

lio

ns

of

Do

llar

s

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Mil

lio

ns

of

Vis

its

National Park Visits Skier Visits


Table 77 National Parks Recreation Visits

TotalCapitol National

Year Arches Bryce Canyonlands Reef Zion Parks

1982 339,415 471,517 97,079 289,486 1,246,290 2,443,7871983 287,875 472,633 100,022 331,734 1,273,030 2,465,2941984 345,180 495,104 102,533 296,230 1,377,254 2,616,3011985 363,464 500,782 116,672 320,503 1,503,272 2,804,6931986 419,444 578,018 172,987 383,742 1,670,503 3,224,6941987 468,916 718,342 172,384 428,808 1,777,619 3,566,0691988 520,455 791,348 212,100 469,556 1,948,332 3,941,7911989 555,809 808,045 257,411 515,278 1,998,856 4,135,3991990 620,719 862,659 276,831 562,477 2,102,400 4,425,0861991 705,882 929,067 339,315 618,056 2,236,997 4,829,3171992 799,831 1,018,174 395,698 675,837 2,390,626 5,280,1661993 773,678 1,107,951 434,844 610,707 2,392,580 5,319,7601994 777,178 1,028,134 429,921 605,324 2,270,871 5,111,4281995 859,374 994,548 448,769 648,864 2,430,162 5,381,7171996 856,016 1,269,600 447,527 678,012 2,498,001 5,749,1561997 858,525 1,174,824 432,697 625,680 2,445,534 5,537,2601998 837,161 1,166,331 436,524 656,026 2,370,048 5,466,0901999 869,980 1,081,521 446,160 680,153 2,449,664 5,527,4782000 786,429 1,099,275 401,558 612,656 2,432,348 5,332,2662001 754,026 1,068,619 368,592 527,760 2,227,490 4,946,4872002 769,672 886,436 375,549 523,458 2,592,835 5,147,9502003 757,781 903,760 386,985 535,439 2,458,791 5,042,7562004 733,129 987,250 371,706 551,910 2,674,162 5,318,1572005 781,667 1,017,680 393,672 550,253 2,586,659 5,329,9312006 833,046 890,673 413,587 513,702 2,514,490 5,165,4982007 860,175 955,715 417,516 554,905 2,657,280 5,445,5912008 928,794 1,043,321 436,713 604,810 2,657,213 5,670,8512009 996,306 1,216,376 436,819 617,207 2,735,396 6,002,1042010 1,022,823 1,285,490 435,907 662,659 2,666,021 6,072,9002011 1,040,756 1,296,000 473,769 668,833 2,825,480 6,304,8382012* 495,260 529,323 216,203 298,138 1,373,782 2,912,706

Percent Change2010-2011 1.8% 0.8% 8.7% 0.9% 6.0% 3.8%

Average Annual Rate of Change1982-2011 3.9% 3.5% 5.6% 2.9% 2.9% 3.3%

* = 2012 Q1, Q2

Source: National Park Service


Table 78 Profile of the Utah Travel Industry

Category 2008 2009 2010 2011% Change 2010-2011

AARC 2008-2011

Total Spending by Travelers and Tourists (millions) $6,925 $6,232 $6,525 $6,869 5.3% -0.3%

Total Direct State and Local Taxes Generated by Travel Spending (millions) $908 $806 $841 $890 5.8% -0.7% State Government Portion 540 480 500 528 5.6% -0.7% Local Government Portion 367 326 341 362 6.2% -0.5%

Total Travel and Recreation-Related Employment 136,893 120,216 122,839 124,059 1.0% -3.2% Direct Travel and Recreation-Related Employment 91,009 80,040 81,907 82,584 0.8% -3.2% Indirect & Induced Travel and Recreation-Related Employment 42,885 40,176 40,932 41,475 1.3% -1.1%

Total Number of Foreign and Domestic Visits (millions) 20.3 19.4 20.2 22.0 8.9% 2.7%

Total National Park Recreation Visits (millions) 5.6 5.9 6.0 6.3 5.0% 4.0%

Total State Park Visits (millions) 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.8 0.0% 2.2%

Total Skier Visits (millions) 3.9 4.0 4.2 3.8 -9.5% -0.9%

Total Airline Passengers at Salt Lake International Airport (millions) 20.7 20.0 21.0 20.0 -4.8% -1.1%

Taxable Room Rents $1,003 $836 $1,066 $1,199 12.5% 6.1%

Hotel/Motel Occupancy Rates 63.7% 57.0% 59.7% 62.7% 5.0% -0.5%

AARC = Average Annual Rate of Change

Sources: Estimates are based on information gathered from a variety of sources including National Park Service; Utah State Tax Commission; Utah Department of Transportation; Department of Workforce Services; Department of Natural Resources; Salt LakeInternational Airport; U.S. Department of Commerce; Ski Utah; Rocky Mountain Lodging Report; Governor's Office of Management and Budget; Governor's Office of Economic Development - Office of Tourism; and D.K. Shiflet and Associates Ltd.


Table 79 Utah Tourism Indicators

National Salt Lake Travel- Traveler HotelPark State Park Int'l. Airport Related Spending Occupancy

Year Visits Visits Passengers Skier Visits Employment (Millions) Rate

1983 $140,728,877 2,465,294 5,214,498 7,059,964 2,038,544 - - -1984 161,217,797 2,616,301 4,400,103 7,514,113 2,317,255 - - -1985 165,280,248 2,804,693 4,846,637 8,984,780 2,369,901 - - -1986 175,807,344 3,224,694 5,387,791 9,990,986 2,436,544 - - -1987 196,960,612 3,566,069 5,489,539 10,163,883 2,491,191 - - -1988 220,687,694 3,941,791 5,072,123 10,408,233 2,440,668 - - -1989 240,959,095 4,135,399 4,917,615 11,898,847 2,368,985 - - -1990 261,017,079 4,425,086 5,033,776 11,982,276 2,572,154 - - 63.8%1991 295,490,324 4,829,317 5,425,129 12,477,926 2,500,134 - - 69.4%1992 312,895,967 5,280,166 5,908,000 13,870,609 2,751,551 - - 70.3%1993 352,445,691 5,319,760 6,950,063 15,894,404 2,560,805 - - 71.9%1994 378,024,547 5,111,428 6,953,400 17,564,149 2,850,000 - - 73.7%1995 429,189,045 5,381,717 7,070,702 18,460,000 2,800,000 - - 73.5%1996 477,409,577 5,749,156 7,478,764 21,088,482 3,113,800 - - 73.1%1997 519,160,181 5,537,260 7,184,639 21,068,314 2,954,690 - - 68.0%1998 540,424,182 5,466,090 6,943,780 20,297,371 3,042,767 - - 63.8%1999 545,328,875 5,527,478 6,768,016 19,944,556 3,095,347 - - 61.6%2000 567,708,954 5,332,266 6,555,299 19,900,770 3,278,291 - - 60.9%2001 578,445,705 4,946,487 6,075,456 18,367,961 2,984,574 - - 59.9%2002 666,718,674 5,147,950 5,755,782 18,662,030 3,141,212 - - 62.1%2003 599,476,406 5,042,756 4,570,393 18,466,756 3,429,141 - - 58.8%2004 660,606,509 5,318,157 4,413,702 18,352,495 3,895,578 127,739 $5,648 60.8%2005 753,689,699 5,329,931 4,377,041 22,237,936 4,062,188 126,151 $5,779 65.0%2006 739,621,493 5,165,498 4,494,990 21,557,646 4,082,094 124,482 $5,908 68.3%2007 819,803,181 5,445,591 4,925,277 22,044,533 4,258,900 138,848 $6,769 68.4%2008 1,002,664,837 5,670,851 4,564,770 20,790,400 3,972,984 136,893 $6,925 63.7%2009 836,423,007 6,002,104 4,782,186 20,432,218 4,048,153 120,216 $6,232 57.0%2010 968,969,754 6,072,900 4,842,891 21,016,686 4,223,064 122,839 $6,524 59.7%2011 1,199,511,543 6,304,838 4,803,876 20,389,474 3,802,536 124,059 $6,869 62.7%

Percent Change Change2010-2011 23.8% 3.8% -0.8% -3.0% -10.0% 1.0% 5.3% 3.0%

Average Annual Rate of Change1983-2010 8.0% 3.4% -0.3% 3.9% 2.3% -0.4% 2.8% -

Sources: Estimates are based on information gathered from a variety of sources including National Park Service;Utah State Tax Commission; Utah Department of Transportation; Department of Workforce Services; Department of Natural Resources; Salt Lake International Airport; U.S. Department of Commerce; Ski Utah; Rocky MountainLodging Report; Governor's Office of Management and Budget; Governor's Office of EconomicDevelopment - Officeof Tourism; and D.K. Shiflet and Associates Ltd.Tourism; and D.K Shiflet and Associates Ltd.

Taxable Room Rents

2004-2010

e c o n o m i c r e p o r t t o t h e g o v e r n o r · average annual pay per capita personal...

Documents